First, quit eviscerating the English language.
Second, these schools have reasonable points- if you can only make money off two or three games a year and you're about to lose those games, you're screwed. These are not Ivy League schools with multi-billion dollar endowments; they are not major sports' schools with basketball or football programs that can keep them afloat. These are mostly small colleges with little name recognition and, in most cases, pretty small endowments. If you take away their main sources of revenue each year, they will not only not make profit, but they will begin to hemorrhage money, and thus will not be able to afford keeping their teams.
This is simple economics. I don't know why the smaller WCHA teams are doing so well with a different approach than the CCHA teams; good for them. However, as a completely neutral (and uninformed) observer from the East, I have to take issue with your assumption that since the smaller WCHA teams can build sustainable success without a handful of major money-makers per season, then so can the CCHA teams. Each team's situation is unique, and it is possible that many of the CCHA teams simply have no other avenues for making the money necessary to keep their programs around. Who knows? But if as many people are saying that some of these teams will have to fold as you make it seem, there must be some truth behind it all.