Te'o helmet

Truth continues to trickle out in Te’o saga


We have likely heard the last words from Manti Te’o and his family about the hoax that started as a sports story and has since turned into a cultural phenomenon. With the story moving from websites like ESPN to pop culture locales like TMZ, Te’o’s appearance yesterday on Katie, former CBS news anchor Katie Couric’s daytime talk show, acknowledged that Te’o and his representatives needed to do the ugly PR work needed to keep the All-American linebacker mainly in the football world, separating himself from characters like NBA player Kris Humphries, who is now more associated with his tabloid marriage and divorce proceedings with reality TV star Kim Kardashian than his exploits on the basketball court.

But in the story that will not die, the hoax surrounding fictional girlfriend Lennay Kekua, the brainchild of 22-year-old Southern California native Ronaiah Tuiasosopo, has taken another set of twists and turns.

Yesterday, a high-powered Los Angeles lawyer said to be representing Tuiasosopo, claimed that Ronaiah was the voice behind the phone calls exchanged between Te’o and what was thought to be Kekua, an astounding feat of subterfuge considering the hundreds of hours Te’o and his supposed long-distance girlfriend spent talking.

While many were once again quick to jump on Te’o — this time for his ability to be duped by a man said to be impersonating a female — Couric played audio of three voicemails left on Te’o’s phone, and just about anyone being honest with themselves heard the voice of a young woman.

The audio was so compelling that ABC News’ Matt Gutman spoke with audio experts that said it was impossible that those recordings featured a man’s voice. And in a New York Post report from Friday, the focus has now shifted away from Ronaiah Tuiasosopo to his female cousin Tino Tuiasosopo, who the post reports is the real voice of Lennay Kekua.

Hoax mastermind Ronaiah Tuiasosopo’s pretty young cousin played the part of “Lennay Kekua,” the fake girlfriend he created, The Post has learned.

Tino Tuiasosopo convinced the Notre Dame grid star that she was the real deal, calling him at school, telling him she loved him and even sobbing hysterically when another girl answered his phone, several of the woman’s relatives said yesterday.

“Tino is the girl that Manti has been talking to all these months,” said a Tuiasosopo cousin.

The revelation shoots down claims by Ronaiah Tuiasosopo’s attorney, Milton Grimes, that Ronaiah altered his masculine voice to play the part of the chirpy, flirty Kekua.

The rest of the Post story reveals some details that make it seem like we’ve finally stumbled upon the truth behind the curious question of who Te’o was talking to for all those hours.


Te’o had told ESPN’s Jeremy Schaap the down-to-the-details information about who he thought Lennay Kekua was, and they match up quite closely with Tino Tuiasosopo. Te’o said Kekua worked for her father’s construction company. The Post reports that Tino Tuiasosopo works for her father’s construction company in American Samoa.

In Schaap’s interview, Te’o pointed to the end of Lennay’s relationship with her previous boyfriend as the time his relationship blossomed with Lennay. The Post reports that Tino “assumed her role in the Te’o ruse after she was dumped from a long distance relationship with another man.”

“She said it was OK, because she was doing better. She said she was talking to another person [and] he plays football for Notre Dame — number 5, Manti,” a source told The Post.

In other news related to the story, the Associated Press has obtained an eight-page letter sent from Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins to the school’s Board of Trustees, detailing the school’s handling of their investigation into the hoax.

With a detailed outline of the university’s actions and a four-page explanation to the trustees, Jenkins told the board that everything they uncovered has largely been in line with what Te’o told school officials in late December.

“We did our best to get to the truth in extraordinary circumstances, be good stewards of the interests of the university and its good name and – as we do in all things – to make the well-being of our students one of our very highest priorities,” Jenkins concluded in his letter.

Some of the timeline Notre Dame outlined is well known, including that its star linebacker disclosed the scam to his coaches the day after Christmas and it remained unknown to the public until Deadspin.com broke the story on Jan. 16, long after the Fighting Irish lost the BCS championship to Alabama on Jan. 7.

Jenkins wrote that Notre Dame officials talked in the hours after hearing from Te’o on Dec. 26 and agreed there was no indication of a crime or student conduct code violation. Athletic director Jack Swarbrick spoke with Te’o the next day, and on Dec. 28 the school concluded there were no indications of an NCAA rules violation, which could have put Notre Dame’s 12-0 regular season in jeopardy.

The school then made moves to find out who was behind the hoax, thereby protecting Te’o and itself.

“For the first couple of days after receiving the news from Manti, there was considerable confusion and we simply did not know what there was to disclose,” Jenkins wrote.

On Jan. 2, after several days of internal discussion and a week after Te’o’s disclosure, Notre Dame retained Stroz Friedberg, a New York computer forensics firm to investigate the case and whether any other football players had been targeted.

That the university ended up hiring one of the leading firms in digital forensics and cybercrimes should end any of the outrage that emanated from certain media outlets, who characterized the investigation as something akin to keystone cops, with criticism coming rather loudly from those who questioned the tactics used by the independent investigators.

Yet it took just two days for the investigators to come to the conclusion that Te’o was indeed the victim of the hoax, and that it presented no threat to the school. Combine that with the fact that Te’o had hired Creative Artists Agency to represent him, and Jenkins told the board the school “concluded that this matter was personal to Manti.”





Only focus after Clemson loss is winning on Saturday

SOUTH BEND, IN - SEPTEMBER 19: Head coach Brian Kelly of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish looks on against the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets in the second quarter at Notre Dame Stadium on September 19, 2015 in South Bend, Indiana. Notre Dame defeated Georgia Tech 30-22. (Photo by Joe Robbins/Getty Images)

The 2015 college football season has yet to showcase a truly great football team. With early title contenders like Ohio State and Michigan State looking less than stellar, Alabama losing a game already and the Pac-12 beating itself up, the chance that a one-loss Notre Dame team could still make it into the College Football Playoff is certainly a possibility.

But don’t expect Brian Kelly and his football team to start worrying about that now.

We saw a similar situation unfold last season, after the Irish lost a heartbreaker in the final seconds against Florida State. With many fans worried that Notre Dame wasn’t given credit for their performance in Tallahassee, the Irish’s playoff resume mattered very little as the team fell apart down the stretch.

As Notre Dame looks forward, their focus only extends to Saturday. That’s when Navy will test the Irish with their triple-option attack and better-than-usual defense, a team that Brian Kelly voted into his Top 25 this week.

Can this team make it to the Playoff? Kelly isn’t sure. But he knows what his team has to do.

“I don’t know,” Kelly said when asked about a one-loss entrance. “But we do know what we can control, and that is winning each week. So what we really talked about is we have no margin for error, and we have to pay attention to every detail.

“Each game is the biggest and most important game we play and really focusing on that. It isn’t concern yourself with big picture. You really have to focus on one week at a time.”

Kelly spread that message to his five captains after the game on Saturday night. He’s optimistic that message has set in over the weekend, and he’ll see how the team practices as they begin their on-field preparations for Navy this afternoon.

But when asked what type of response he wants to see from his team this week, it wasn’t about the minutiae of the week or a company line about daily improvement.

“The response is to win. That’s the response that we’re looking for,” Kelly said, before detailing four major factors to victory. “To win football games, you have to start fast, which we did not. There has to be an attention to detail, which certainly we were missing that at times. We got great effort, and we finished strong. So we were missing two of the four real key components that I’ll be looking for for this weekend. As long as we have those four key components, I’ll take a win by one. That would be fine with me. We need those four key components. That’s what I’ll be looking for.”

Go for two or not? Both sides of the highly-debated topic

during their game at Clemson Memorial Stadium on October 3, 2015 in Clemson, South Carolina.

Notre Dame’s two failed two-point conversion tries against Clemson have been the source of much debate in the aftermath of the Irish’s 24-22 loss to the Tigers. Brian Kelly’s decision to go for two with just over 14 minutes left in the game forced the Irish into another two-point conversion attempt with just seconds left in regulation, with DeShone Kizer falling short as he attempted to push the game into overtime.

Was Kelly’s decision to go for two the right one at the beginning of the fourth quarter? That depends.

Take away the result—a pass that flew through the fingers of a wide open Corey Robinson. Had the Irish kicked their extra point, Justin Yoon would’ve trotted onto the field with a chance to send the game into overtime. (Then again, had Robinson caught the pass, Notre Dame would’ve been kicking for the win in the final seconds…)

This is the second time a two-point conversion decision has opened Kelly up to second guessing in the past eight games. Last last season, Kelly’s decision to go for two in the fourth-quarter with an 11-point lead against Northwestern, came back to bite the Irish and helped the Wildcats stun Notre Dame in overtime.

That choice was likely fueled by struggles in the kicking game, heightened by Kyle Brindza’s blocked extra-point attempt in the first half, a kick returned by Northwestern that turned a 14-7 game into a 13-9 lead. With a fourth-quarter, 11-point lead, the Irish failed to convert their two-point attempt that would’ve stretched their lead to 13 points. After Northwestern converted their own two-point play, they made a game-tying field goal after Cam McDaniel fumbled the ball as the Irish were running out the clock. Had the Irish gone for (and converted) a PAT, the Wildcats would’ve needed to score a touchdown.

Moving back to Saturday night, Kelly’s decision needs to be put into context. After being held to just three points for the first 45 minutes of the game, C.J. Prosise broke a long catch and run for a touchdown in the opening minute of the fourth quarter. Clemson would be doing their best to kill the clock. Notre Dame’s first touchdown of the game brought the score within 12 points when Kelly decided to try and push the score within 10—likely remembering the very way Northwestern forced overtime.

After the game, Kelly said it was the right decision, citing his two-point conversion card and the time left in the game. On his Sunday afternoon teleconference, he said the same, giving a bit more rationale for his decision.

“We were down and we got the chance to put that game into a two-score with a field goal. I don’t chase the points until the fourth quarter, and our mathematical chart, which I have on the sideline with me and we have a senior adviser who concurred with me, and we said go for two. It says on our chart to go for two.

“We usually don’t use the chart until the fourth quarter because, again, we don’t chase the points. We went for two to make it a 10-point game. So we felt we had the wind with us so we would have to score a touchdown and a field goal because we felt like we probably only had three more possessions.

“The way they were running the clock, we’d probably get three possessions maximum and we’re going to have to score in two out of the three. So it was the smart decision to make, it was the right one to make. Obviously, you know, if we catch the two-point conversion, which was wide open, then we just kick the extra point and we’ve got a different outcome.”

That logic and rationale is why I had no problem with the decision when it happened in real time. But not everybody agrees.

Perhaps the strongest rebuke of the decision came from Irish Illustrated’s Tim Prister, who had this to say about the decision in his (somewhat appropriately-titled) weekly Point After column:

Hire another analyst or at least assign someone to the task of deciphering the Beautiful Mind-level math problem that seems to be vexing the Notre Dame brain-trust when a dweeb with half-inch thick glasses and a pocket protector full of pens could tell you that in the game of football, you can’t chase points before it is time… (moving ahead)

…The more astonishing thing is that no one in the ever-growing football organization that now adds analysts and advisors on a regular basis will offer the much-needed advice. Making such decisions in the heat of battle is not easy. What one thinks of in front of the TV or in a press box does not come as clearly when you’re the one pulling the trigger for millions to digest.

And yet with this ever-expanding entourage, Notre Dame still does not have anyone who can scream through the headphones to the head coach, “Coach, don’t go for two!”

If someone, anyone within the organization had the common sense and then the courage to do so, the Irish wouldn’t have lost every game in November of 2014 and would have had a chance to win in overtime against Clemson Saturday night.

My biggest gripe about the decision was the indecision that came along with the choice. Scoring on a big-play tends to stress your team as special teams players shuffle onto the field and the offense comes off. But Notre Dame’s use of a timeout was a painful one, and certainly should’ve been spared considering the replay review that gave Notre Dame’s coaching staff more time to make a decision.

For what it’s worth, Kelly’s decision was probably similar to the one many head coaches would make. And it stems from the original two-point conversion chart that Dick Vermeil developed back in the 1970s.

The original chart didn’t account for success rate or time left in the game. As Kelly mentioned before, Notre Dame uses one once it’s the fourth quarter.

It’s a debate that won’t end any time soon. And certainly one that will have hindsight on the side of the “kick the football” argument.