Breaking
Invest Core Path
Author

admin

Browsing
Investing

Cyprium Metals Limited (ASX: CYM) – Trading Halt

Investing 1 Min Read

Trading in the securities of Cyprium Metals Limited (‘CYM’) will be halted at the request of CYM, pending the release of an announcement by CYM.

Unless ASX decides otherwise, the securities will remain in trading halt until the earlier of:

  • the commencement of normal trading on Friday, 23 January 2026; or
  • the release of the announcement to the market.

CYM’s request for a trading halt is attached below for the information of the market.

Issued by
ASX Compliance

Click here for the full ASX Release

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Walker Lane Resources Ltd. Completes an Updated Mineral Resource and Plans in 2026 to Advance Exploration Efforts and a Preliminary Economic Assessment in its Silver Hart Project, Yukon, Canada

Investing 12 Mins Read

TSX-V: WLR
Frankfurt: 6YL

Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects and its Companion Policy 43-101CP with an effective date of January 6, 2026.

The report was co-authored by Ronacher McKenzie Geosciences Inc. who conducted a site visit in 2025 to verify work completed since the 2021 season that has been reported by WLR which included a drill program in 2022, a minor sampling program on the Silver Hart claims in 2024, completion of a trenching program and minor reconnaissance efforts on the adjoining and acquired Blue Heaven claims in 2024, and reclamation programs on all of the claims in 2023 and 2024.

Subject to financing WLR intends to conduct drilling, socio-economic, environmental and engineering studies and initiate a Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Silver Hart Project in 2026.

The CIM Standards require that an estimated mineral resource must have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. A summary of the SHP mineral resource economic and technical parameters and/or assumptions is presented in Table 1 below. A pit-shell was optimized based on silver equivalent values calculated using the economic parameters in the table.

Table 1: Summary of the Siver Hart Project Economic and Technical Parameters/Assumptions

Item

Units

Extended

Mining cost

CAD$/t all material

10.00

Processing cost

CAD$/t crude feed

25.50

G&A cost

CAD$/t crude feed

5.00

Exchange rate

CAD$ to US$

0.75

Ag price

USD$/oz

23.30

Pb price

US$/metric tonne

1,892

Zn price

US$/metric tonne

2,505

Metallurgical recovery

Percentage

80

Overall pit slope

Degrees

45

Silver Equivalent Calculation:  AgEq g/t = [(Ag ppm x %Rec. x Price/g) + (Pb ppm x %Rec. x Price/g) + (Zn ppm x %Rec. x Price/g)]/ (Ag Price/g x %Rec).
Note: Rec. = metallurgical recovery. AgEq=Silver Equivalent.

Block grade interpolation was performed using the ordinary kriging (OK) technique. The estimated pit constrained mineral resources were classified as Inferred, despite some close drill hole spacing in some zones and the continuity of mineralization as confirmed by variography, mainly because of the lack of substantiated metal recoveries and suspect collar surveys. Table 2 summarizes the update MRE fpr the Silver Hart Project effective as at January 6, 2026.

Table 2: Silver Hart Project – Pit Constrained Mineral Resources at a Cut-off Grade of AgEq>=50 g/t 

Mining Method

Domain

Mass (Tonnes)

Average Value

Material Content

AgEq g/t

Ag g/t

Pb %

Zn %

AgEq

Million oz

Ag Million oz

Pb

Million lb

Zn

Million lb

Open

Pit

TM_Zone

269,000

229.8

152.7

0.56

1.88

1.985

1.319

3.3

11.1

S_Zone

127,000

334.5

262.1

0.36

1.90

1.368

1.072

1.0

5.3

KL_Zone

1,026,000

110.9

35.7

0.11

2.17

3.659

1.178

2.5

49.0

K_Zone

265,000

79.8

14.2

0.09

1.90

0.680

0.121

0.5

11.1

M_Zone

202,000

173.6

98.1

0.58

1.82

1.128

0.637

2.6

8.1

Total

1,889,000

145.2

71.3

0.24

2.03

8.820

4.327

9.9

84.7

Notes:

1.

The effective date of this mineral resource statement is January 6, 2026.

2.

The qualified person responsible for this Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) is Charley Murahwi, M.Sc., P.Geo., FAusIMM.

3.

The mineral resources have been estimated in accordance with the CIM Best Practice Guidelines (2019) and the CIM Definition Standards (2014)

4.

Ordinary Kriging (OK) interpolation was used with a single block size of 5m x 5m x 5m.

5.

The Economic & Technical parameters/assumptions are summarized in Table 1.1 above.

6.

The mineral resource results are presented in-situ within the optimized pit. Mineralized material outside the pit has not been considered as a part of the current MRE.

7.

The tonnes and metal contents are rounded to reflect that the numbers are an estimate and any discrepancies in the totals are due to the rounding effects.

8.

Mineral resources unlike mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

The report also noted that:

  • All the deposits remain open along strike in both directions and down dip, and, in particular, the largest deposit (KL zone). The likelihood of some of the deposits merging (i.e., K to KL, TM main to H and S to M) cannot be ruled out if a program of step out and infill drilling is implemented.
  • The growth potential for the mineral resource is satisfactory as the deposits remain open for expansion in all directions (i.e., strike in both directions and down dip).
  • Prospects for growing the resource via new discoveries appear favorable based on the fact that several known mineral occurrences and anomalies within the Silver Hart and the adjacent Blue Heaven claims remain to be test drilled for resource evaluation.
  • The early initial metallurgical tests completed previously in 1986 and, in 2006, do not have substantiated documentation regarding representativity and location of the samples and, thus, the need for a fresh start is warranted. Nonetheless, the general response of lead, zinc and silver to flotation in those early tests was generally positive.

The NI-43-101 MRE report has been filed on its SEDAR+ profile and will soon be published on the Company’s website at www.walkerlaneresources.com

Kevin Brewer, President and CEO of WLR, commented ‘The MRE is a major milestone in our exploration efforts at Silver Hart. The MRE was estimated at prices much lower than current spot metal prices, which if used in the silver equivalent calculation in the MRE calculation result in an improved silver equivalent grade. You can do the math. As a result, WLR now intends to advance our evaluation of this project to consider a production decision in the short term. Mineralization in all of the zones in the Silver Hart Project start at surface and therefore are expected to be amenable to small scale open pit mining. WLR and its predecessor company CMC Metals Ltd. have been working on this project for 20 years and it is now prepped to take the project to the next stage.’

Next Steps – Highlights of Proposed 2026 Exploration Program and Preparation of a Preliminary Economic Assessment

Walker Lane Resources Ltd. also announced that it is preparing to commence planning for the next stage of its exploration program and evaluation of the Silver Hart Project which will contribute to a potential development decision for the project.

Subject to financing, WLR intends to:

  • Complete 1,500-2,000 meters of exploration drilling to (i) extend the resources on the TM Zone (ii) to conduct infill drilling in the TM Zone with the objective of converting a majority of the inferred resources to indicated resources.
  • Conduct 1,000-1,500 meters of exploratory drilling on known areas of mineralization on the Blue Heaven claims.
  • Metallurgical testing including pre-concentration (ore sorting / dense heavy media separation) assessments.
  • Conduct additional environmental and socio-economic studies to support a possible development application for the project. This is expected to include examining opportunities for partnerships with local First Nations.
  • Initiate a Preliminary Economic Assessment of the project which will include preliminary engineering and a preliminary transportation/logistics analysis.

Qualified Persons

The resource evaluation work was completed by Mr. Charley Murahwi, M.Sc. P.Geo., FAusIMM and Richard Gowans, B.Sc, P.Eng of MICON International Limited. Mr. Murahwi conducted a personal inspection of the Silver Hart Project on August 17-20, 2021. Dr. Gloria Lopez, PhD, P.Geo. of Ronacher-McKenzie Geosciences Inc. was a contributing author and conducted a personal inspection of the Silver Hart Project on September 16, 2025. This information release has also been reviewed and approved by the Qualified Persons.

About Walker Lane Resources Ltd.

Walker Lane Resources Ltd. is a growth-stage exploration company focused on the exploration of high-grade gold, silver and polymetallic deposits in the Walker Lane Gold Trend District in Nevada and the Rancheria Silver District in Yukon/B.C. and other property assets in Yukon. The Company intends to initiate an aggressive exploration program to advance the Tule Canyon (Walker Lane, Nevada) and Amy (Rancheria Silver District, B.C.) projects through drilling programs with the aim of achieving resource definition in the near future.

For more information, please consult the Company’s filings, available at www.sedarplus.ca. Also please feel free to call Kevin at the number below.

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Kevin Brewer
CEO and Director
Walker Lane Resources Ltd.

Cautionary and Forward Looking Statements

This press release and related figures and/or tables, contain certain forward-looking information and forward-looking statements as defined in applicable securities laws (collectively referred to as forward-looking statements). These statements relate to future events or our future performance. All statements other than statements of historical fact are forward-looking statements. The use of any of the words ‘anticipate’, ‘plans’, ‘continue’, ‘estimate’, ‘expect’, ‘may’, ‘will’, ‘project’, ‘predict’, ‘potential’, ‘should’, ‘believe’ ‘targeted’, ‘can’, ‘anticipates’, ‘intends’, ‘likely’, ‘should’, ‘could’  or grammatical variations thereof and similar expressions is intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements. These statements speak only as of the date of this presentation. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements concerning: our strategy and priorities including certain statements included in this presentation are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Canadian securities laws, including statements regarding the Tule Canyon, Cambridge, Silver Mountain, and Shamrock Properties in Nevada (USA), and its properties including Silverknife and Amy properties in British Columbia, the  Silver Hart, Blue Heaven and Logjam properties in Yukon all of which now comprise the mineral property assets of WLR. WLR has assumed other assets of CMC Metals Ltd. including common share holdings of North Bay Resources Inc. (OTC-US: NBRI) and all conditions and agreements pertaining to the sale of the Bishop mill gold processing facility and remain subject to the condition of the option of the Silverknife property with Coeur Mining Inc. (TSX:CDE). These forward-looking statements reflect the Company’s current beliefs and are based on information currently available to the Company and assumptions the Company believes are reasonable. The Company has made various assumptions, including, among others, that: the historical information related to the Company’s properties is reliable; the Company’s operations are not disrupted or delayed by unusual geological or technical problems; the Company has the ability to explore the Company’s properties; the Company will be able to raise any necessary additional capital on reasonable terms to execute its business plan; the Company’s current corporate activities will proceed as expected; general business and economic conditions will not change in a material adverse manner; and budgeted costs and expenditures are and will continue to be accurate.

Actual results and developments may differ materially from results and developments discussed in the forward-looking statements as they are subject to a number of significant risks and uncertainties, including: public health threats; fluctuations in metals prices, price of consumed commodities and currency markets; future profitability of mining operations; access to personnel; results of exploration and development activities, accuracy of technical information; risks related to ownership of properties; risks related to mining operations; risks related to mineral resource figures being estimates based on interpretations and assumptions which may result in less mineral production under actual conditions than is currently anticipated; the interpretation of drilling results and other geological data; receipt, maintenance and security of permits and mineral property titles; environmental and other regulatory risks; changes in operating expenses; changes in general market and industry conditions; changes in legal or regulatory requirements; other risk factors set out in this presentation; and other risk factors set out in the Company’s public disclosure documents. Although the Company has attempted to identify significant risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other risks that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. Certain of these risks and uncertainties are beyond the Company’s control. Consequently, all of the forward-looking statements are qualified by these cautionary statements, and there can be no assurances that the actual results or developments will be realized or, even if substantially realized, that they will have the expected consequences or benefits to, or effect on, the Company.

The information contained in this presentation is derived from management of the Company and otherwise from publicly available information and does not purport to contain all of the information that an investor may desire to have in evaluating the Company. The information has not been independently verified, may prove to be imprecise, and is subject to material updating, revision and further amendment. While management is not aware of any misstatements regarding any industry data presented herein, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made or given by or on behalf of the Company as to the accuracy, completeness or fairness of the information or opinions contained in this presentation and no responsibility or liability is accepted by any person for such information or opinions. The forward-looking statements and information in this presentation speak only as of the date of this presentation and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances, except as may be required by applicable law. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements and information are reasonable, there can be no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. Because of the risks, uncertainties and assumptions contained herein, prospective investors should not read forward-looking information as guarantees of future performance or results and should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Nothing in this presentation is, or should be relied upon as, a promise or representation as to the future. To the extent any forward-looking statement in this presentation constitutes ‘future-oriented financial information’ or ‘financial outlooks’ within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws, such information is being provided to demonstrate the anticipated market penetration and the reader is cautioned that this information may not be appropriate for any other purpose and the reader should not place undue reliance on such future-oriented financial information and financial outlooks. Future-oriented financial information and financial outlooks, as with forward-looking statements generally, are, without limitation, based on the assumptions and subject to the risks set out above. The Company’s actual financial position and results of operations may differ materially from management’s current expectations and, as a result, the Company’s revenue and expenses. The Company’s financial projections were not prepared with a view toward compliance with published guidelines of International Financial Reporting Standards and have not been examined, reviewed or compiled by the Company’s accountants or auditors. The Company’s financial projections represent management’s estimates as of the dates indicated thereon.

SOURCE Walker Lane Resources Ltd

View original content to download multimedia: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2026/21/c0060.html

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

LAURION Strengthens its Technical Leadership at Ishkoday with Appointment of Pierre-Jean Lafleur, P.Eng., as Qualified Person

Investing 7 Mins Read

(TheNewswire)

Toronto, Ontario January 21, 2026 TheNewswire – Laurion Mineral Exploration Inc. (TSX-V: LME | OTCQB: LMEFF | FSE: 5YD) (‘LAURION’ or the ‘Company’) announces the appointment of Pierre-Jean Lafleur, P.Eng., as the Company’s new Qualified Person, effective immediately.

Pierre-Jean is a highly experienced geological engineer and consultant who has authored numerous National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (‘NI 43-101’) technical reports for gold and mineral resource projects, including Duparquet (Québec), Balabag (Philippines) and Lac Lamêlée (iron ore, Québec), demonstrating deep expertise in gold, base metals, and international resource evaluation. He specializes in property evaluation, mineral resource estimation and various aspects of exploration and mining project management.

‘Pierre-Jean brings exactly the combination of geological insight, Qualified Person leadership, and technical discipline that aligns with our execution priorities,‘ said Cynthia Le Sueur-Aquin, President and CEO of LAURION. ‘His experience strengthens our ability to advance Ishkōday through disciplined interpretation, integrated modelling, and technically grounded decision-making as the project continues to evolve.’

The Company also extends its sincerest thanks to Jean-Philippe Paiement, P.Geo., for his contributions and efforts during his tenure as the Company’s Qualified Person. LAURION wishes him continued success in his future endeavours.

Strengthened Technical Team to Advance Ishkōday

LAURION has strategically strengthened its technical leadership to support disciplined advancement at the Ishkōday Gold-Polymetallic Project. Pierre-Jean Lafleur and Ali Ben Ayad (Structural-Geophysicist) will lead the integration and synthesis of LAURION’s geological, geophysical, and drilling datasets to refine the A-Zone geological envelope, develop robust 3D wireframes, and establish the technical foundation required for future resource-definition work under NI 43-101.

In parallel, Rogerio Monteiro of Vektore will contribute advanced structural interpretation and grade-vectoring analysis to support the prioritization of step-out targets with potential to extend known mineralization, with initial emphasis on the Sturgeon River Mine area and broader Ishkōday corridor. Vektore’s proprietary spatial-analytic framework transforms grade information into directionally weighted vector fields, supporting early-stage identification of structural trends and high-probability concentration zones.

 

This work will be closely coordinated with Ronacher McKenzie Geoscience (RMG) and LAURION’s internal exploration team to ensure disciplined execution, continuity of interpretation, and alignment across technical workstreams.

Guidance on Timing of NI 43-101 Technical Reports

 

While LAURION is working toward the technical foundation required to support an eventual NI 43-101 compliant technical report expressing a mineral resource estimate (‘MRE’), potentially followed by a subsequent technical report disclosing a preliminary economic assessment (‘PEA’), the Company is not providing guidance on timing of either of these technical objectives. Progress toward an MRE and PEA will depend on multiple factors, including ongoing refinement of geological and structural models, the definition of mineralized continuity through further work and drilling where required, and access to financing to execute the necessary programs. Accordingly, references to NI 43-101 technical reports should be regarded as an ongoing technical objective of the Company, not an indication that the completion dates for an MRE and PEA can be accurately predicted at this stage.

 

LAURION believes the appointment of Pierre-Jean as its new Qualified Person further strengthens the Company’s technical leadership as it continues developing Ishkōday.

 

Qualified Person

The technical contents of this release were reviewed and approved by Pierre-Jean Lafleur, P.Eng, a consultant to LAURION and a Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101.

 

About LAURION Mineral Exploration Inc.

 

Laurion Mineral Exploration Inc. is a mid-stage junior mineral exploration company listed on the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol LME and on the OTC Pink market under the symbol LMEFF. The Company currently has 278,716,413 common shares outstanding, with approximately 73.6% held by insiders and long-term ‘Friends and Family’ investors, reflecting strong alignment between management, the Board, and shareholders.

 

LAURION’s primary focus is the 100%-owned, district-scale Ishkōday Project, a 57 km² land package hosting gold-rich polymetallic mineralization. The Company is advancing Ishkōday through a disciplined, milestone-driven exploration strategy focused on strengthening geological confidence, defining structural continuity.

 

LAURION’s strategy is centered on deliberate value creation. The Company is prioritizing systematic technical advancement, integrated geological and structural modeling, and the evaluation of optional, non-dilutive pathways, including historical surface stockpile processing, that may support flexibility in LAURION’s exploration plans without diverting the Company’s focus from its core exploration objectives.

 

The Company’s overarching objective is to build project value before monetization, ensuring that any future strategic outcomes are supported by technical clarity, reduced execution risk, and demonstrated scale. While the Board remains attentive to strategic interest that may arise, LAURION is not driven by transaction timing. Instead, the Company is focused on advancing the Ishkōday Project in a manner that strengthens long-term shareholder value.

 

LAURION will continue to communicate updates through timely disclosure and will issue press releases in accordance with applicable securities laws should any material information arise.

 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

 

Laurion Mineral Exploration Inc.

Cynthia Le Sueur-Aquin – President and CEO

Tel: 1-705-788-9186 Fax: 1-705-805-9256

 

Douglas Vass – Investor Relations Consultant

Email: info@laurion.ca

Website: http://www.LAURION.ca

Follow us on: X (@LAURION_LME), Instagram (laurionmineral) and LinkedIn ()

 

Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Information

This press release contains forward-looking statements, which reflect the Company’s current expectations regarding future events including with respect to LAURION’s business, operations and condition, management’s objectives, strategies, beliefs and intentions, the Company’s ability to advance the Ishkōday Project, the nature, focus, timing and potential results of the Company’s exploration, drilling and prospecting activities in 2026 and beyond, the timing of, and the Company’s ability to complete, any technical reports or milestones regarding the Ishkōday Project, and the statements regarding the Company’s exploration or consideration of any possible strategic alternatives and transactional opportunities, as well as the potential outcome(s) of this process, the possible impact of any potential transactions referenced herein on the Company or any of its stakeholders, and the ability of the Company to identify and complete any potential acquisitions, mergers, financings or other transactions referenced herein, and the timing of any such transactions. The forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. Actual events and future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements could differ materially from those projected herein including as a result of a change in the trading price of the common shares of LAURION, the TSX Venture Exchange or any other applicable regulator not providing its approval for any strategic alternatives or transactional opportunities, the interpretation and actual results of current exploration activities, changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined, future prices of gold and/or other metals, possible variations in grade or recovery rates, failure of equipment or processes to operate as anticipated, the failure of contracted parties to perform, labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry, delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing or in the completion of exploration, as well as those factors disclosed in the Company’s publicly filed documents. Investors should consult the Company’s ongoing quarterly and annual filings, as well as any other additional documentation comprising the Company’s public disclosure record, for additional information on risks and uncertainties relating to these forward-looking statements. The reader is cautioned not to rely on these forward-looking statements. Subject to applicable law, the Company disclaims any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. All sample values are from grab samples and channel samples, which by their nature, are not necessarily representative of overall grades of mineralized areas. Readers are cautioned to not place undue reliance on the assay values reported in this press release.

NEITHER THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE NOR ITS REGULATION SERVICE PROVIDER (AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THE POLICIES OF THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE) ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THE CONTENT OF THIS NEWS RELEASE.

  

Copyright (c) 2026 TheNewswire – All rights reserved.

News Provided by TheNewsWire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Sport

Why Baker Mayfield’s looking forward to facing the Falcons in 2026

Sport 2 Mins Read

The Atlanta Falcons made a move to bring on former Cleveland Browns head coach Kevin Stefanski for the 2026 NFL season. He became the second signing in what’s become a busy offseason for coaching changes across the league.

There’s one NFC South foe looking forward to seeing him twice a year who has a history with the former Browns coach.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers quarterback Baker Mayfield responded to a post on X saying that Stefanski had a ‘dumpster fire at quarterback’ during his time in Cleveland.

‘Failed is quite the reach pal,’ Mayfield wrote. ‘Still waiting on a text/call from him after I got shipped off like a piece of garbage. Can’t wait to see you twice a year, Coach.’

Mayfield and Stefanski ended an 18-year playoff drought in their first season together in Cleveland in 2020. The Browns earned their first playoff win since 1994 that year with a 48-37 win over the Pittsburgh Steelers.

The team went 8-9 and missed the playoffs in 2021. Mayfield dealt with a partially torn labrum and missed time during the year. He underwent surgery for the injury in Week 17 of that season.

Cleveland traded for Deshaun Watson the following offseason and Mayfield subsequently requested a trade. He ended up in Carolina to start the 2022 season but was released mid-season. He closed out the year with the Los Angeles Rams and his game-winning drive in his first game as a starter with the team helped him earn a one-year deal with Tampa Bay.

Since the start of the 2023 season, Mayfield ranks second only to Jared Goff in most touchdown passes (95) and passing yards (12,434) in the NFL.

Mayfield will face off against Stefanski’s Falcons twice a year starting this fall.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Sport

Struggling Knicks call players-only meeting after home fans boo team

Sport 2 Mins Read

The New York Knicks have hit a rough patch.

After they were blown out at home Monday, Jan. 19 by a middling Dallas Mavericks team – marking their fourth consecutive loss and ninth in 11 games – team captain Jalen Brunson called a players-only meeting to sort through their struggles, according to ESPN.

Per the report, Brunson challenged his teammates to uncover solutions for their poor play, rather than to wait and defer to the coaching staff.

This came after the Knicks were booed at home Monday night, down by as many as 30 points. New York would lose 114-97, and it was the offense that once again let the Knicks down. Brunson and Karl-Anthony Towns combined for 44 points, but the rest of New York’s starters (Josh Hart, OG Anunoby and Mikal Bridges) contributed only 24 points.

“I mean, I’d be booing us, too,” Brunson told reporters after the game. “Straight up.”

The Knicks began the year with promise, jumping to the No. 2 seed and winning the NBA Cup in mid-December. Once the new year began, however, the team has struggled to find consistent offense, with the ball stagnating; in January, the Knicks have scored 109.4 points per 100 possessions, which ranks 26th in the NBA.

“We’ve got to lock in,” Knicks coach Mike Brown said Monday night after the loss. “We’ve got to do our job for 48 minutes. They scored 75 points in the first half. And at halftime, we usually (show) the clips and talk about technical Xs and Os and crap that coaches do and teams do. There was nothing to be said at halftime, except ‘Lock in and do your (expletive) job,’ excuse me on that.”

Brown pointed out how the Mavericks scored 39 points in the second half, compared to 44 in just the second quarter.

“It’s within our guys,” Brown said. “But we all have to do our job for 48 minutes.”

The Knicks (25-18) are still third in the Eastern Conference, and they have the chance to course correct against crosstown rivals, the Brooklyn Nets (12-29) on Wednesday, Jan. 21.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Sport

Jonathan Kuminga finally returns to court in Warriors’ loss to Raptors

Sport 6 Mins Read

SAN FRANCISCO — Golden State Warriors forward Jonathan Kuminga finally was called off the bench and into action during a 145-127 loss to the Toronto Raptors at Chase Center on Tuesday night.

On the second night of a back-to-back — with the Warriors now having to go forward without Jimmy Butler, who suffered a season-ending ACL tear Monday night — head coach Steve Kerr said he would look more toward his bench depth, including Kuminga who hadn’t played in 16 games due to a coach’s decision.

Kuminga received a roar from the Chase Center crowd when he subbed into the game to start the second quarter of the contest.

He finished with 20 points on 7-of-10 shooting in 21 minutes. He added five rebounds and two assists. Teammate Buddy Hield led the team in scoring with 25 points off then bench, including a perfect 6-of-6 from deep, in 19 minutes of play.

“JK [Kuminga] been a factor in here,’ head coach Steve Kerr told reporters. ‘Really pleased with the way he’s stayed ready and stayed prepared, and he got his opportunity and played really well.”

With Butler out, Kerr said that he would tinker with different lineups on various ‘trial and error’ runs. Kerr told USA TODAY that it’s possible Kuminga could even jolt into the starting role.

‘Everything’s a possibility right now,’ Kerr said. “When you have an injury to, not only one of your best players but one of the best players in the league, it just changes everything. The puzzle completely changes. So we will definitely experiment with some different lineups and combinations. One guy effects the other four and so it will be under consideration, for sure.”

How did Jonathan Kuminga play?

The Warriors were down 41-28 after the first quarter before Kuminga was subbed into the game to start the second period.

In his first stint, a little under five minutes, Kuminga missed his only shot attempt: An alley-oop tip-in on a pass from Draymond Green. He was fouled but missed both free throws. He managed to grab two rebounds in his limited action.

His plus/minus was a minus-10 in four minutes and 39 seconds of playing time.

Golden State is looking for a spark from their bench depth after Butler was lost for the season with a torn ACL.

Kerr said after the Warriors’ win over the Miami Heat that Kuminga could see the floor following Butler’s devastating injury.

‘Sure, absolutely,’ Kerr said responding to a question about Kuminga playing against Toronto.

Warriors trailed 91-63 when Kuminga returned to the game at the 6:12 mark of the third quarter.

He scored 12 points in the period, throwing down a ferocious two-handed slam off an alley-oop pass from Green, a couple of mid-range shots through contact and going the length of the court to make a buzzer-beating layup to end the third.

Golden State trailed 108-94 at the end of three quarters. Kuminga played the remainder of the quarter since subbing in at the 6:12 mark and was a plus-4 after the period.

Kuminga played the entire fourth quarter as his play continued to help the Warriors to cut into that huge double-digit deficit. It was cut to as low as 11 points.

However, the Raptors ran the score back up late and held on to win the game.

The Raptors were led by Immanuel Quickley tied a career-high 40 points to lead all scorers in the game. He shot 11-of-13 from the field, including 7-of-8 from 3-pointers and a perfect 11-of-11 from the free throw line.

Jonathan Kuminga’s future with Warriors

With the NBA trade deadline looming on Feb. 5, Warriors general manager Mike Dunleavy Jr. spoke to reporters before Monday night’s game, expressing disappointment in losing Butler to injury.

‘He was having a great year and obviously that’s over now. So we’re disappointed as a team, as an organization but most especially individually for Jimmy,’ Dunleavy said. ‘He’s been so much to this organization since he got here. It’s hard to believe he hasn’t even been here a year. He’s fit in so well, we hate it for him. But the beat goes on, we have to keep going.’

There are questions about whether Kuminga can become a focal point of the team’s rotation or is still a key trade component. Kuminga reportedly requested for a trade from Golden State last week.

‘I think as far as the demand, I’m aware of that,’ Dunleavy said. ‘I think in terms of demands, for you to make a demand there needs to be a demand in the market. So we’ll see where that goes.’

He added: ‘Always with these guys I tell them I’m willing to work with them. I want to help people out, whether that’s JK [Kuminga] or any player on our roster. I’m good with [it], if that’s his wishes, trying to figure that out but we have to do what’s best for our organization and that’s as far as it goes.’

However, Dunleavy said with the deadline coming up, he will take the time to evaluate the team.

‘I felt pretty good with where we’re at ending last night’s game in terms of what we need to do. Thought our team was playing well, heading in the right direction,’ Dunleavy said. ‘Obviously things have changed so I wanna take a couple weeks here to watch these games and see our team and what we can do better.’

Dunleavy still holds Kuminga in high regard and believes he can be an asset as a member of the Warriors, and not just a trade piece.

‘He’s available every night. I think there’s a path and a way for him to help us win games,’ Dunleavy said. ‘He knows what that is. If he can do those things, there’s no doubt if he can help us.’

He added: ‘Disappointed it hasn’t worked out better, but it is what it is. But there’s still time left here. He’s still on our roster. The trade’s been requested but nothing’s imminent. Things in this league change in a heartbeat as they did [against Miami].’

Jonathan Kuminga 2025-26 regular-season stats

Here are Kuminga’s average statistics so far though the 2025-26 regular season, prior to Tuesday’s game against the Raptors:

  • Games played: 18
  • Minutes: 24.8
  • Points: 11.8
  • Rebounds: 6.2
  • Assists: 2.6
  • Steals: 0.3
  • Blocks: 0.3
  • Field goal %: .431
  • 3-point field goal %: .320
  • Free throw %: .741

Jonathan Kuminga career stats

These are Kuminga’s career averages through five seasons in the NBA, prior to Tuesday’s game against the Raptors:

  • Games played: 276
  • Minutes: 22.2
  • Points: 12.5
  • Rebounds: 4.2
  • Assists: 1.8
  • Steals: 0.6
  • Blocks: 0.4
  • Field goal %: .502
  • 3-point field goal %: .331
  • Free throw %: .699
This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Sport

How every coach voted in the final college football US LBM Coaches poll ranking

Sport 13 Mins Read

After an amazing college football season, the votes in the final US LBM Coaches Poll have been cast. Indiana has finished No. 1 in the rankings following its defeat of Miami in the College Football Playoff national championship game.

The Hurricanes finished second after their impressive run through the postseason that fell just short of a national champion. The rest of the final poll saw several changes due to the results of bowl season. Only one team besides Indiana stayed in the same place as the final regular-season poll.

So how did the vote shake out among the final rankings? Below are each of the ballots from all 62 coaches who participated on the panel for the last Top 25 poll of the 2025 college football season.

Tim Albin, Ohio

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Oregon
  4. Mississippi
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Notre Dame
  10. Alabama
  11. Oklahoma
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Utah
  14. Texas
  15. Vanderbilt
  16. Virginia
  17. Navy
  18. James Madison
  19. Tulane
  20. North Texas
  21. Houston
  22. Georgia Tech
  23. Southern California
  24. Iowa
  25. SMU

Dave Aranda, Baylor

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Georgia
  5. Oregon
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas A&M
  8. Texas Tech
  9. Alabama
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Brigham Young
  12. Notre Dame
  13. Utah
  14. Texas
  15. Vanderbilt
  16. Washington
  17. Illinois
  18. Virginia
  19. Iowa
  20. Tulane
  21. Houston
  22. Navy
  23. TCU
  24. Arizona
  25. Duke

David Braun, Northwestern

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Ohio State
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Utah
  14. James Madison
  15. Tulane
  16. Iowa
  17. Vanderbilt
  18. Texas
  19. Michigan
  20. Virginia
  21. Illinois
  22. Southern California
  23. Duke
  24. North Texas
  25. Navy

Jeff Brohm, Louisville

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Ohio State
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Alabama
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Brigham Young
  12. Notre Dame
  13. Texas
  14. Utah
  15. Virginia
  16. Iowa
  17. Vanderbilt
  18. James Madison
  19. Tulane
  20. TCU
  21. SMU
  22. Houston
  23. Illinois
  24. Duke
  25. Louisville

Fran Brown, Syracuse

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Oklahoma
  7. Ohio State
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Alabama
  10. Notre Dame
  11. Texas Tech
  12. Texas
  13. Vanderbilt
  14. Duke
  15. Virginia
  16. Brigham Young
  17. Utah
  18. Southern California
  19. Arizona
  20. Tulane
  21. Houston
  22. Georgia Tech
  23. James Madison
  24. Iowa
  25. North Texas

Troy Calhoun, Air Force

  1. Indiana
  2. Georgia
  3. Ohio State
  4. Oregon
  5. Miami (Fla.)
  6. Mississippi
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Alabama
  11. Oklahoma
  12. Notre Dame
  13. Brigham Young
  14. Utah
  15. Iowa
  16. Vanderbilt
  17. Houston
  18. Michigan
  19. Tulane
  20. Virginia
  21. Georgia Tech
  22. North Texas
  23. Navy
  24. Washington
  25. Illinois

Jason Candle, Toledo

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Georgia
  5. Ohio State
  6. Oregon
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Notre Dame
  10. Alabama
  11. Oklahoma
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Utah
  14. Texas
  15. Tulane
  16. James Madison
  17. Virginia
  18. Iowa
  19. Vanderbilt
  20. Houston
  21. Southern California
  22. Michigan
  23. Illinois
  24. SMU
  25. Navy

Ryan Carty, Delaware

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Alabama
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. James Madison
  10. Tulane
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Texas
  14. Utah
  15. Virginia
  16. Iowa
  17. Houston
  18. Navy
  19. North Texas
  20. Vanderbilt
  21. Georgia Tech
  22. Michigan
  23. Arizona
  24. Southern California
  25. Illinois

Jamey Chadwell, Liberty

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Oregon
  4. Ohio State
  5. Mississippi
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Texas
  13. Utah
  14. James Madison
  15. Tulane
  16. Brigham Young
  17. Vanderbilt
  18. Michigan
  19. Virginia
  20. Navy
  21. Illinois
  22. Iowa
  23. Houston
  24. SMU
  25. North Texas

Bob Chesney, James Madison

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Notre Dame
  10. Brigham Young
  11. Texas
  12. Alabama
  13. Oklahoma
  14. Utah
  15. Virginia
  16. Vanderbilt
  17. Southern California
  18. Michigan
  19. James Madison
  20. Tulane
  21. Navy
  22. Houston
  23. Iowa
  24. Illinois
  25. Duke

Curt Cignetti, Indiana

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Oregon
  4. Mississippi
  5. Ohio State
  6. Georgia
  7. Notre Dame
  8. Texas
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Texas Tech
  11. Iowa
  12. Alabama
  13. Oklahoma
  14. Brigham Young
  15. Utah
  16. Illinois
  17. Michigan
  18. Washington
  19. Vanderbilt
  20. TCU
  21. Southern California
  22. SMU
  23. Arizona
  24. Houston
  25. James Madison

Chris Creighton, Eastern Michigan

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Ohio State
  6. Georgia
  7. Alabama
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Texas Tech
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Vanderbilt
  14. Utah
  15. James Madison
  16. Tulane
  17. Southern California
  18. Virginia
  19. Georgia Tech
  20. Arizona
  21. Texas
  22. Houston
  23. Navy
  24. North Texas
  25. Michigan

Spencer Danielson, Boise State

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Ohio State
  4. Mississippi
  5. Oregon
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Notre Dame
  10. Alabama
  11. Brigham Young
  12. Texas
  13. Oklahoma
  14. Utah
  15. Southern California
  16. Iowa
  17. Vanderbilt
  18. Virginia
  19. Houston
  20. James Madison
  21. Tulane
  22. North Texas
  23. Michigan
  24. Washington
  25. Navy

Ryan Day, Ohio State

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Ohio State
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Oklahoma
  10. Texas A&M
  11. Brigham Young
  12. Notre Dame
  13. Texas
  14. Utah
  15. Virginia
  16. Iowa
  17. Vanderbilt
  18. Southern California
  19. Arizona
  20. Tulane
  21. Houston
  22. Georgia Tech
  23. Michigan
  24. Illinois
  25. North Texas

Kalen DeBoer, Alabama

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Ohio State
  6. Georgia
  7. Alabama
  8. Texas Tech
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Texas
  13. Brigham Young
  14. Utah
  15. Iowa
  16. Virginia
  17. Vanderbilt
  18. Navy
  19. Houston
  20. SMU
  21. TCU
  22. Southern California
  23. Washington
  24. Michigan
  25. Illinois

Manny Diaz, Duke

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Ohio State
  4. Oregon
  5. Mississippi
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Notre Dame
  10. Alabama
  11. Oklahoma
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Texas
  14. Virginia
  15. Utah
  16. Vanderbilt
  17. Georgia Tech
  18. Houston
  19. Tulane
  20. Southern California
  21. Michigan
  22. Illinois
  23. Iowa
  24. Duke
  25. SMU

Dave Doeren, North Carolina State

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Oregon
  4. Mississippi
  5. Ohio State
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Brigham Young
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Utah
  13. Texas
  14. Vanderbilt
  15. Tulane
  16. Alabama
  17. James Madison
  18. Virginia
  19. Houston
  20. Southern California
  21. Navy
  22. Iowa
  23. North Texas
  24. SMU
  25. Duke

Eliah Drinkwitz, Missouri

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Alabama
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Brigham Young
  12. Texas
  13. Utah
  14. Notre Dame
  15. Virginia
  16. Houston
  17. Navy
  18. Iowa
  19. Vanderbilt
  20. Tulane
  21. James Madison
  22. Southern California
  23. North Texas
  24. Duke
  25. SMU

Sonny Dykes, TCU

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Oregon
  4. Mississippi
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Alabama
  8. Texas Tech
  9. Oklahoma
  10. Texas A&M
  11. Brigham Young
  12. Utah
  13. Notre Dame
  14. Texas
  15. Vanderbilt
  16. Virginia
  17. James Madison
  18. TCU
  19. Houston
  20. Illinois
  21. Southern California
  22. Iowa
  23. Georgia Tech
  24. SMU
  25. Navy

Jason Eck, New Mexico

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Ohio State
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Notre Dame
  10. Texas A&M
  11. Utah
  12. Texas
  13. Iowa
  14. Vanderbilt
  15. Oklahoma
  16. Brigham Young
  17. James Madison
  18. Virginia
  19. Washington
  20. Tulane
  21. Wake Forest
  22. North Texas
  23. Navy
  24. Houston
  25. Western Michigan

Mike Elko, Texas A&M

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Alabama
  10. Texas
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Oklahoma
  13. Brigham Young
  14. Utah
  15. Virginia
  16. Iowa
  17. Vanderbilt
  18. Washington
  19. Tulane
  20. James Madison
  21. Houston
  22. Southern California
  23. North Texas
  24. Duke
  25. Michigan

Luke Fickell, Wisconsin

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Ohio State
  4. Mississippi
  5. Oregon
  6. Texas Tech
  7. Texas A&M
  8. Alabama
  9. Oklahoma
  10. Notre Dame
  11. Brigham Young
  12. Texas
  13. Utah
  14. Virginia
  15. Michigan
  16. Southern California
  17. Georgia Tech
  18. Houston
  19. Iowa
  20. Tennessee
  21. Navy
  22. Arizona
  23. North Texas
  24. Washington
  25. Illinois

Jedd Fisch, Washington

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Oregon
  4. Mississippi
  5. Ohio State
  6. Georgia
  7. Alabama
  8. Notre Dame
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Texas Tech
  11. Oklahoma
  12. Texas
  13. Brigham Young
  14. Utah
  15. Iowa
  16. Michigan
  17. Washington
  18. Vanderbilt
  19. Illinois
  20. Virginia
  21. Georgia Tech
  22. Houston
  23. Southern California
  24. Tulane
  25. James Madison

James Franklin, Penn State

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Ohio State
  4. Mississippi
  5. Oregon
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas A&M
  8. Oklahoma
  9. Texas Tech
  10. Alabama
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Texas
  14. Vanderbilt
  15. Utah
  16. Virginia
  17. Southern California
  18. Iowa
  19. Michigan
  20. Houston
  21. Arizona
  22. Tulane
  23. Duke
  24. James Madison
  25. North Texas

Marcus Freeman, Notre Dame

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Georgia
  5. Oregon
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas A&M
  8. Texas Tech
  9. Notre Dame
  10. Alabama
  11. Brigham Young
  12. Oklahoma
  13. Texas
  14. Utah
  15. Iowa
  16. Vanderbilt
  17. Michigan
  18. Virginia
  19. Navy
  20. Houston
  21. Georgia Tech
  22. James Madison
  23. Tulane
  24. Illinois
  25. TCU

Willie Fritz, Houston

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Ohio State
  4. Mississippi
  5. Georgia
  6. Oregon
  7. Texas A&M
  8. Texas Tech
  9. Alabama
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Texas
  14. Houston
  15. Vanderbilt
  16. Utah
  17. Virginia
  18. Iowa
  19. Michigan
  20. James Madison
  21. Georgia Tech
  22. Tulane
  23. Southern California
  24. SMU
  25. Washington

Alex Golesh, South Florida

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Ohio State
  4. Mississippi
  5. Georgia
  6. Oregon
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Oklahoma
  10. Notre Dame
  11. Texas
  12. Vanderbilt
  13. Alabama
  14. Brigham Young
  15. Utah
  16. Virginia
  17. Southern California
  18. Michigan
  19. James Madison
  20. Tulane
  21. Navy
  22. Iowa
  23. Houston
  24. Washington
  25. Duke

Thomas Hammock, Northern Illinois

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Ohio State
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Alabama
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Texas
  14. Utah
  15. Virginia
  16. Iowa
  17. Vanderbilt
  18. Southern California
  19. Michigan
  20. James Madison
  21. Tulane
  22. Navy
  23. Houston
  24. Illinois
  25. Duke

Blake Harrell, East Carolina

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Alabama
  8. Texas Tech
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Brigham Young
  12. Utah
  13. Texas
  14. Notre Dame
  15. Tulane
  16. James Madison
  17. Navy
  18. Houston
  19. Vanderbilt
  20. Virginia
  21. North Texas
  22. Arizona
  23. Duke
  24. Georgia Tech
  25. East Carolina

Tyson Helton, Western Kentucky

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Georgia
  5. Oregon
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Notre Dame
  10. Alabama
  11. Oklahoma
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Utah
  14. Texas
  15. Iowa
  16. Vanderbilt
  17. Washington
  18. Illinois
  19. Virginia
  20. SMU
  21. Houston
  22. Tulane
  23. James Madison
  24. Navy
  25. TCU

Charles Huff, Southern Mississippi

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Notre Dame
  11. Texas
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Utah
  14. Oklahoma
  15. Vanderbilt
  16. Virginia
  17. Iowa
  18. Southern California
  19. Houston
  20. Michigan
  21. TCU
  22. Navy
  23. North Texas
  24. Tulane
  25. James Madison

Brent Key, Georgia Tech

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Ohio State
  5. Oregon
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Brigham Young
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Alabama
  13. Texas
  14. Utah
  15. Virginia
  16. Vanderbilt
  17. Southern California
  18. Iowa
  19. Houston
  20. Duke
  21. Tulane
  22. Georgia Tech
  23. James Madison
  24. SMU
  25. Navy

GJ Kinne, Texas State

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Georgia
  5. Oregon
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Alabama
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Texas
  12. Notre Dame
  13. Brigham Young
  14. Utah
  15. Vanderbilt
  16. James Madison
  17. SMU
  18. Virginia
  19. Houston
  20. Tennessee
  21. Georgia Tech
  22. Illinois
  23. Iowa
  24. TCU
  25. North Texas

Zach Kittley, Florida Atlantic

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Texas Tech
  6. Georgia
  7. Ohio State
  8. Alabama
  9. Oklahoma
  10. Texas A&M
  11. Texas
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Notre Dame
  14. Utah
  15. Virginia
  16. Vanderbilt
  17. Houston
  18. Illinois
  19. Tulane
  20. Georgia Tech
  21. Michigan
  22. Iowa
  23. James Madison
  24. North Texas
  25. Navy

Tre Lamb, Tulsa

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Texas Tech
  7. Ohio State
  8. Alabama
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Texas
  14. Utah
  15. Virginia
  16. Vanderbilt
  17. Houston
  18. Southern California
  19. Michigan
  20. Tulane
  21. Arizona
  22. James Madison
  23. Navy
  24. North Texas
  25. Iowa

Dan Lanning, Oregon

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Ohio State
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Texas
  13. Brigham Young
  14. Utah
  15. Iowa
  16. SMU
  17. Michigan
  18. Illinois
  19. Washington
  20. Virginia
  21. Louisville
  22. James Madison
  23. Tulane
  24. Southern California
  25. Vanderbilt

Rhett Lashlee, SMU

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Georgia
  5. Ohio State
  6. Oregon
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Notre Dame
  10. Alabama
  11. Oklahoma
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Utah
  14. Texas
  15. SMU
  16. Vanderbilt
  17. Duke
  18. Virginia
  19. Houston
  20. Iowa
  21. Illinois
  22. Washington
  23. Georgia Tech
  24. Tulane
  25. Wake Forest

Clark Lea, Vanderbilt

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Texas
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Utah
  14. Vanderbilt
  15. Notre Dame
  16. Virginia
  17. Iowa
  18. Houston
  19. Southern California
  20. Michigan
  21. Washington
  22. James Madison
  23. Navy
  24. SMU
  25. Illinois

Lance Leipold, Kansas

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Ohio State
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Brigham Young
  10. Notre Dame
  11. Alabama
  12. Texas
  13. Oklahoma
  14. Utah
  15. Vanderbilt
  16. Iowa
  17. Virginia
  18. Michigan
  19. Houston
  20. Washington
  21. Tulane
  22. Illinois
  23. James Madison
  24. TCU
  25. Navy

Pete Lembo, Buffalo

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Georgia
  5. Ohio State
  6. Oregon
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Oklahoma
  10. Texas A&M
  11. Texas
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Utah
  14. Notre Dame
  15. Vanderbilt
  16. Virginia
  17. Southern California
  18. Tulane
  19. Michigan
  20. James Madison
  21. Iowa
  22. Houston
  23. Illinois
  24. North Texas
  25. Navy

Sean Lewis, San Diego State

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Oregon
  4. Mississippi
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Oklahoma
  10. Texas A&M
  11. Brigham Young
  12. Notre Dame
  13. Texas
  14. Utah
  15. James Madison
  16. Tulane
  17. North Texas
  18. Virginia
  19. Iowa
  20. Vanderbilt
  21. Michigan
  22. Houston
  23. Washington
  24. Tennessee
  25. Georgia Tech

Mike Locksley, Maryland

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Oklahoma
  10. Texas A&M
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Texas
  13. Brigham Young
  14. Utah
  15. Vanderbilt
  16. Virginia
  17. James Madison
  18. Tulane
  19. Arizona
  20. North Texas
  21. Iowa
  22. Navy
  23. Houston
  24. Washington
  25. Illinois

Chuck Martin, Miami (Ohio)

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Georgia
  5. Oregon
  6. Texas A&M
  7. Alabama
  8. Notre Dame
  9. Oklahoma
  10. Ohio State
  11. Texas
  12. Texas Tech
  13. Brigham Young
  14. Utah
  15. Virginia
  16. James Madison
  17. TCU
  18. Houston
  19. Iowa
  20. Vanderbilt
  21. Tulane
  22. Southern California
  23. Michigan
  24. SMU
  25. Arizona

Joey McGuire, Texas Tech

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Oregon
  4. Mississippi
  5. Ohio State
  6. Texas Tech
  7. Georgia
  8. Alabama
  9. Brigham Young
  10. Texas A&M
  11. Oklahoma
  12. Notre Dame
  13. Utah
  14. Texas
  15. Vanderbilt
  16. Houston
  17. Virginia
  18. Southern California
  19. Michigan
  20. Arizona
  21. Iowa
  22. Tulane
  23. North Texas
  24. James Madison
  25. TCU

Bronco Mendenhall, Utah State

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Texas
  12. Notre Dame
  13. Brigham Young
  14. Vanderbilt
  15. Utah
  16. Virginia
  17. James Madison
  18. Iowa
  19. Tulane
  20. Duke
  21. Houston
  22. Navy
  23. Michigan
  24. Southern California
  25. North Texas

Jeff Monken, Army

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Ohio State
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Brigham Young
  11. Utah
  12. Notre Dame
  13. Texas
  14. Oklahoma
  15. Houston
  16. Vanderbilt
  17. Virginia
  18. Tulane
  19. James Madison
  20. Southern California
  21. Michigan
  22. Iowa
  23. Arizona
  24. North Texas
  25. Georgia Tech

Jim Mora, Connecticut

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Georgia
  4. Mississippi
  5. Ohio State
  6. Oregon
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Vanderbilt
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Texas
  14. Utah
  15. Southern California
  16. Michigan
  17. Virginia
  18. Duke
  19. Georgia Tech
  20. Tennessee
  21. Houston
  22. Connecticut
  23. Tulane
  24. James Madison
  25. Notre Dame

Eric Morris, North Texas

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Brigham Young
  12. Notre Dame
  13. Utah
  14. Texas
  15. James Madison
  16. Vanderbilt
  17. Virginia
  18. Tulane
  19. North Texas
  20. Iowa
  21. Houston
  22. Navy
  23. Southern California
  24. Michigan
  25. Duke

Pat Narduzzi, Pittsburgh

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Ohio State
  5. Oregon
  6. Texas A&M
  7. Georgia
  8. Alabama
  9. Oklahoma
  10. Texas
  11. Utah
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Notre Dame
  14. Texas Tech
  15. Virginia
  16. Georgia Tech
  17. Michigan
  18. Southern California
  19. Iowa
  20. Vanderbilt
  21. SMU
  22. Houston
  23. Arizona
  24. Duke
  25. Pittsburgh

Brian Newberry, Navy

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Ohio State
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas A&M
  8. Texas Tech
  9. Notre Dame
  10. Texas
  11. Brigham Young
  12. Utah
  13. Oklahoma
  14. Vanderbilt
  15. Virginia
  16. Tulane
  17. James Madison
  18. North Texas
  19. Navy
  20. Old Dominion
  21. Alabama
  22. Illinois
  23. Southern California
  24. Michigan
  25. Iowa

Ken Niumatalolo, San Jose State

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Ohio State
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Texas
  14. Utah
  15. Virginia
  16. Southern California
  17. Iowa
  18. Vanderbilt
  19. Michigan
  20. Houston
  21. SMU
  22. Arizona
  23. Tulane
  24. North Texas
  25. Navy

Gerad Parker, Troy

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Notre Dame
  10. Alabama
  11. Oklahoma
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Texas
  14. Utah
  15. Virginia
  16. Vanderbilt
  17. Southern California
  18. Iowa
  19. James Madison
  20. Michigan
  21. Tulane
  22. Navy
  23. Houston
  24. Washington
  25. TCU

Matt Rhule, Nebraska

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Ohio State
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Mississippi
  7. Texas A&M
  8. Texas Tech
  9. Alabama
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Utah
  14. Texas
  15. Virginia
  16. Southern California
  17. Iowa
  18. Vanderbilt
  19. Tulane
  20. Michigan
  21. James Madison
  22. Georgia Tech
  23. Illinois
  24. Navy
  25. Houston

Rich Rodriguez, West Virginia

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Oregon
  4. Mississippi
  5. Ohio State
  6. Georgia
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Brigham Young
  10. Utah
  11. Alabama
  12. Oklahoma
  13. Texas
  14. Notre Dame
  15. Virginia
  16. Iowa
  17. Southern California
  18. Vanderbilt
  19. Houston
  20. SMU
  21. Arizona
  22. TCU
  23. James Madison
  24. Tulane
  25. Navy

Jay Sawvel, Wyoming

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Georgia
  5. Ohio State
  6. Oregon
  7. Texas A&M
  8. Texas Tech
  9. Utah
  10. Texas
  11. Alabama
  12. Oklahoma
  13. Brigham Young
  14. Notre Dame
  15. Iowa
  16. TCU
  17. Vanderbilt
  18. Southern California
  19. Louisville
  20. Duke
  21. Virginia
  22. Houston
  23. Illinois
  24. Michigan
  25. Arizona

Willie Simmons, Florida International

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Ohio State
  5. Georgia
  6. Oregon
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Notre Dame
  11. Brigham Young
  12. Texas
  13. Oklahoma
  14. Utah
  15. Vanderbilt
  16. Virginia
  17. Tulane
  18. James Madison
  19. Southern California
  20. Michigan
  21. Houston
  22. Navy
  23. North Texas
  24. TCU
  25. Army

Kirby Smart, Georgia

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas Tech
  8. Alabama
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Texas
  12. Notre Dame
  13. Vanderbilt
  14. Brigham Young
  15. Utah
  16. Southern California
  17. Michigan
  18. Virginia
  19. Tulane
  20. Navy
  21. Iowa
  22. Illinois
  23. James Madison
  24. Tennessee
  25. Houston

Mark Stoops, Kentucky

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Oregon
  4. Mississippi
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Alabama
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Texas Tech
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Vanderbilt
  13. Texas
  14. Brigham Young
  15. Utah
  16. Southern California
  17. Tulane
  18. Michigan
  19. James Madison
  20. Virginia
  21. Navy
  22. Houston
  23. Illinois
  24. Arizona
  25. Georgia Tech

Jon Sumrall, Tulane

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Alabama
  7. Ohio State
  8. Texas Tech
  9. Oklahoma
  10. Texas A&M
  11. Texas
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Utah
  14. Vanderbilt
  15. Notre Dame
  16. Virginia
  17. Tulane
  18. Houston
  19. James Madison
  20. Iowa
  21. Southern California
  22. Georgia Tech
  23. Missouri
  24. Navy
  25. Arizona

Lance Taylor, Western Michigan

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Oregon
  4. Mississippi
  5. Georgia
  6. Texas Tech
  7. Ohio State
  8. Texas A&M
  9. Notre Dame
  10. Alabama
  11. Oklahoma
  12. Brigham Young
  13. Texas
  14. Virginia
  15. Utah
  16. Tulane
  17. Vanderbilt
  18. Duke
  19. Houston
  20. James Madison
  21. North Texas
  22. Western Michigan
  23. Iowa
  24. Boise State
  25. Navy

Jeff Traylor, Texas-San Antonio

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Texas A&M
  8. Alabama
  9. Oklahoma
  10. Texas Tech
  11. Notre Dame
  12. Texas
  13. Brigham Young
  14. Utah
  15. Michigan
  16. Vanderbilt
  17. Georgia Tech
  18. Tulane
  19. Houston
  20. Virginia
  21. Iowa
  22. TCU
  23. SMU
  24. Duke
  25. James Madison

Scotty Walden, Texas-El Paso

  1. Indiana
  2. Miami (Fla.)
  3. Mississippi
  4. Oregon
  5. Georgia
  6. Ohio State
  7. Alabama
  8. Texas Tech
  9. Oklahoma
  10. Texas A&M
  11. James Madison
  12. Tulane
  13. Brigham Young
  14. Texas
  15. Utah
  16. Vanderbilt
  17. Virginia
  18. Southern California
  19. Houston
  20. Navy
  21. Michigan
  22. Georgia Tech
  23. Iowa
  24. TCU
  25. North Texas
This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Sport

Duke suing QB Darian Mensah, trying to block him from transferring

Sport 3 Mins Read

Darian Mensah shocked much of the college football world when he entered the transfer portal hours before it closed on Friday, Jan. 16, leaving behind Duke and a lucrative name, image and likeness (NIL) deal with the school after just one season.

The Blue Devils aren’t letting him exit without a fight.

The university is seeking an injunction and restraining order in Durham County (North Carolina) Superior Court that would effectively prohibit Mensah from leaving the program. Reigning national runner-up Miami, which is looking to replace outgoing quarterback Carson Beck, is widely presumed to be Mensah’s preferred destination.

A redshirt sophomore, Mensah transferred to the Blue Devils from Tulane after the 2024 season, signing a two-year contract worth a reported $8 million. In its lawsuit, Duke said the deal grants the school exclusive rights to Mensah’s name, image and likeness “with respect to higher education and football” and that the university has “met all of its obligations under that contract.”

Mensah had announced on Dec. 19 that he was returning to the Blue Devils rather than entering the 2026 NFL Draft.

“Contracts mean something,” the introduction of the lawsuit states. “Mensah’s actions violate numerous provisions of his contract with Duke University and disregard his promises and obligations to the University. And, as Mensah agreed when he signed his contract, such breaches cause Duke irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law and, in the event of any such breach, Duke is entitled to injunctive or other equitable relief.”

Mensah’s attorney, Darren Heitner, said in a statement to the Fayetteville Observer, part of the USA TODAY Network, that the judge denied Duke’s request that Mensah be enjoined from entering the transfer portal.

‘This morning, the judge ruled from the bench, pending a written ruling, denying Duke’s request that Mensah be enjoined from entering the transfer portal,’ Heitner wrote. ‘The judge, a Duke basketball season ticket holder, and thus a booster, also recused himself from future proceedings.’

Heitner, who has previously represented and advised other college athletes, is an adjunct professor of NIL at the University of Miami School of Law.

In his first and potentially only season at Duke, Mensah threw for 3,973 yards — the second-highest mark among FBS quarterbacks — 34 touchdowns and six interceptions while helping lead the Blue Devils to their first-ever ACC championship game victory.

Duke claims in the lawsuit that Mensah had promised in his contract with the university that he wouldn’t enroll at another college or compete in athletics at another school. Additionally, the lawsuit states that Mensah that his representatives and hisfamily members would not “initiate contact with admission or athletics staffs at otherinstitutions’ and that he would notify Duke within 48 hours of any contact with officials or representatives of another college.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Editor's pick

Valentino, founder of Italian luxury empire, dies at 93

Editor's pick 3 Mins Read

ROME — Italian fashion designer Valentino Garavani has died, his foundation said Monday.

Usually known only by his first name, Valentino was 93, and had retired in 2008.

Founder of the eponymous brand, Valentino scaled the heights of haute couture, created a business empire and introduced a new color to the fashion world, the ‘Valentino Red.’

‘Valentino Garavani passed away today at his Roman residence, surrounded by his loved ones,’ the foundation said on Instagram.

He will lie in state Wednesday and Thursday, while the funeral will take place in Rome on Friday, it added.

Ira de Fürstenberg, president of Valentino Parfums, alongside Valentino Garavani in his perfume laboratory in 1978.Alain Dejean / Getty Images file

Valentino was ranked alongside Giorgio Armani and Karl Lagerfeld as the last of the great designers from an era before fashion became a global, highly commercial industry run as much by accountants and marketing executives as the couturiers.

Lagerfeld died in 2019, while Armani died in September.

Valentino was adored by generations of royals, first ladies and movie stars, from Jackie Kennedy Onassis to Julia Roberts and Queen Rania of Jordan, who swore the designer always made them look and feel their best.

“I know what women want,” he once remarked. “They want to be beautiful.”

Italian fashion designer Valentino.Andrea Blanch / Getty Images file

Never one for edginess or statement dressing, Valentino made precious few fashion faux-pas throughout his nearly half-century-long career, which stretched from his early days in Rome in the 1960s through to his retirement in 2008.

His fail-safe designs made Valentino the king of the red carpet, the go-to man for A-listers’ awards ceremony needs.

His sumptuous gowns have graced countless Academy Awards, notably in 2001, when Roberts wore a vintage black and white column to accept her best actress statue. Cate Blanchett also wore Valentino — a one-shouldered number in butter-yellow silk — when she won the Oscar for best supporting actress in 2004.

Valentino and a group of models in his designs during a fashion show in Paris in 1993.Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images file

Valentino was also behind the long-sleeved lace dress Jacqueline Kennedy wore for her wedding to Greek shipping magnate Aristotle Onassis in 1968. Kennedy and Valentino were close friends for decades, and for a spell, the one-time U.S. first lady wore almost exclusively Valentino.

He was also close to Diana, Princess of Wales, who often donned his sumptuous gowns.

Beyond his signature orange-tinged shade of red, other Valentino trademarks included bows, ruffles, lace and embroidery; in short, feminine, flirty embellishments that added to the dresses’ beauty and hence to that of the wearers.

Perpetually tanned and always impeccably dressed, Valentino shared the lifestyle of his jet-set patrons. In addition to his 152-foot yacht and an art collection including works by Picasso and Miro, the couturier owned a 17th-century chateau near Paris with a garden said to boast more than a million roses.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Keep Reading
Investing

LAURION Provides Strategic Update for 2026: Advancing Ishkoday through Disciplined Execution

Investing 8 Mins Read

(TheNewswire)

Toronto, Ontario TheNewswire – January 20, 2026 Laurion Mineral Exploration Inc. (TSX-V: LME | OTCQB: LMEFF | FSE: 5YD) (‘LAURION’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to provide an update on its strategic positioning entering 2026, following a recent strategy session of the Company’s Board of Directors. LAURION’s primary focus for the year ahead is the advancement and further development of its flagship Ishkōday Project, with the objective of enhancing the positioning of the asset to support the Company’s pursuit of strategic alternatives aimed at maximizing long‑term shareholder value.

‘Our focus has always been on advancing Ishkōday through disciplined, milestone-driven execution,’ said Cynthia Le Sueur-Aquin, President and CEO of LAURION. ‘This technical direction reflects my conviction that LAURION’s strategy is sound, disciplined, and built to endure. We are no longer relying on the market to infer value — we are building it by translating technical progress and mineral property advancement into measurable project value. As the Company’s largest shareholder, with my immediate family and I holding over 30 million shares, alignment with this approach matters deeply to me.’

‘This clarity regarding LAURION’s strategic plan is intended to ensure that investors understand how the Company’s disciplined execution today improves outcomes tomorrow, while avoiding mixed signals between whether the Company is prioritizing a pursuit of strategic alternatives as compared to the technical advancement and development of Ishkōday. They are considered concurrent and complementary priorities.’

EVALUATION OF STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES

As previously announced, LAURION has undertaken a structured strategic review process, including the establishment of a special committee (the ‘Special Committee‘) and the engagement of a network of financial and strategic advisors, to explore a range of potential strategic alternatives for the Company, which includes, among other things, assessing interest from potential acquirers and institutional investors aligned with LAURION’s long-term vision. (LAURION press releases dated November 14, 2023, April 14, 2025, September 5, 2025, October 23, 2025 and November 19, 2025.)

As part of recent strategic discussions, the Company received feedback from external advisors regarding the Company’s market positioning, timing, and next steps. These advisors noted that, while interest in high-quality Canadian gold assets exists, it remains selective. The most effective way to strengthen future strategic outcomes is through the continued technical advancement and development of the Ishkōday Project. Specifically, these advisors recommended that LAURION advance the Project toward the completion of a technical report expressing a mineral resource estimate (MRE), followed by a subsequent technical report disclosing a preliminary economic assessment (PEA), each prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (‘NI 43-101‘). Therefore, working towards these two technical milestones will be the Company’s principal focus in 2026.

While LAURION’s M&A infrastructure – comprised of its Special Committee and established network of financial and strategic advisors – remains in place and the Company continues to explore and be receptive to strategic opportunities, day-to-day management will concentrate on advancing the development of the Ishkōday Project through its next stages of technical reporting. Consistent with the guidance provided by the Company’s advisors, the advancement of the Ishkōday Project is expected to further enhance the project’s profile, quantify the merits of the project, and better position LAURION to explore strategic alternatives designed to maximize shareholder value.

FROM BROAD EXPLORATION TO STRUCTURED VALUE DEFINITION

LAURION has built an extensive geological and exploration dataset across a large, mineralized corridor at Ishkōday through a series of deliberate, strategically designed work programs. The Company has developed a structure-led, confidence-building technical program designed to support mineral resource development.

The Company’s technical focus in 2026 will be on integrating this information to identify and progressively refine coherent mineralized envelopes within priority structural corridors, using structurally informed drilling, shoot-fan patterns, and 3D domaining to convert drilling confidence into robust geological models. Near-term drilling will be designed and executed within structurally validated zones and along established plunge directions, with each hole planned to test defined geological hypotheses and contribute directly to model refinement, continuity assessment, and confidence building. This disciplined approach emphasizes data quality and geological consistency, with the objective of ensuring that technical advancement is systematic, defensible, and aligned with NI 43-101. In the Company’s view, by prioritizing technical integrity, LAURION can support near-term target generation and foster future resource growth and value recognition, as this is how the Company intends to increase the underlying value of the project in a manner consistent with how value is traditionally assessed and realized in the mining industry.

LAURION to Attend VRIC 2026

LAURION will be attending the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference (VRIC) 2026, to be held in Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 25-26, 2026. Management will be available during the conference to engage with investors and industry participants and to discuss the Company’s ongoing work at the Ishkōday Gold-Polymetallic Project, its disciplined technical approach, and its 2026 execution priorities. Participation in VRIC supports LAURION’s commitment to transparent investor engagement and clear communication aligned with its milestone-driven strategy.

Qualified Person

The technical contents of this release were reviewed and approved by Pierre-Jean Lafleur, P.Eng, a consultant to LAURION and a Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101.

About LAURION Mineral Exploration Inc.

 

Laurion Mineral Exploration Inc. is a mid-stage junior mineral exploration company listed on the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol LME and on the OTC Pink market under the symbol LMEFF. The Company currently has 278,716,413 common shares outstanding, with approximately 73.6% held by insiders and long-term ‘Friends and Family’ investors, reflecting strong alignment between management, the Board, and shareholders.

LAURION’s primary focus is the 100%-owned, district-scale Ishkōday Project, a 57 km² land package hosting gold-rich polymetallic mineralization. The Company is advancing Ishkōday through a disciplined, milestone-driven exploration strategy focused on strengthening geological confidence, defining structural continuity.

LAURION’s strategy is centered on deliberate value creation. The Company is prioritizing systematic technical advancement, integrated geological and structural modeling, and the evaluation of optional, non-dilutive pathways, including historical surface stockpile processing, that may support flexibility without diverting focus from core exploration objectives.

The Company’s overarching objective is to build project value before monetization, ensuring that any future strategic outcomes are supported by technical clarity, reduced execution risk, and demonstrated scale. While the Board remains attentive to strategic interest that may arise, LAURION is not driven by transaction timing. Instead, the Company is focused on advancing the Ishkōday Project in a manner that strengthens long-term shareholder value.

LAURION will continue to communicate progress through timely disclosure and will issue press releases in accordance with applicable securities laws should any material change occur.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Laurion Mineral Exploration Inc.

Cynthia Le Sueur-Aquin – President and CEO

Tel: 1-705-788-9186 Fax: 1-705-805-9256

 

Douglas Vass – Investor Relations Consultant

Email: info@laurion.ca

Website: http://www.LAURION.ca

Follow us on: X (@LAURION_LME), Instagram (laurionmineral) and LinkedIn ()

 

Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Information

This press release contains forward-looking statements, which reflect the Company’s current expectations regarding future events including with respect to LAURION’s business, operations and condition, management’s objectives, strategies, beliefs and intentions, the Company’s ability to advance the Ishkōday Project, the nature, focus, timing and potential results of the Company’s exploration, drilling and prospecting activities in 2026 and beyond, including the Company’s planned activities for the Ishkōday Project for the remainder of 2026, the timing of, and the Company’s ability to complete, any technical reports or milestones regarding the Ishkōday Project, and the statements regarding the Company’s exploration or consideration of any possible strategic alternatives and transactional opportunities, as well as the potential outcome(s) of this process, the possible impact of any potential transactions referenced or inferred herein on the Company or any of its stakeholders, and the ability of the Company to identify and complete any potential acquisitions, mergers, financings or other transactions referenced or inferred herein, and the timing of any such transactions. The forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. Actual events and future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements could differ materially from those projected herein including as a result of a change in the trading price of the common shares of LAURION, the TSX Venture Exchange or any other applicable regulator not providing its approval for any strategic alternatives or transactional opportunities, the interpretation and actual results of current exploration activities, changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined, future prices of gold and/or other metals, possible variations in grade or recovery rates, failure of equipment or processes to operate as anticipated, the failure of contracted parties to perform, labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry, delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing or in the completion of exploration, as well as those factors disclosed in the Company’s publicly filed documents. Investors should consult the Company’s ongoing quarterly and annual filings, as well as any other additional documentation comprising the Company’s public disclosure record, for additional information on risks and uncertainties relating to these forward-looking statements. The reader is cautioned not to rely on these forward-looking statements. Subject to applicable law, the Company disclaims any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. All sample values are from grab samples and channel samples, which by their nature, are not necessarily representative of overall grades of mineralized areas. Readers are cautioned to not place undue reliance on the assay values reported in this press release.

NEITHER THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE NOR ITS REGULATION SERVICE PROVIDER (AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THE POLICIES OF THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE) ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THE CONTENT OF THIS NEWS RELEASE.

Copyright (c) 2026 TheNewswire – All rights reserved.

News Provided by TheNewsWire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading