Breaking
The Insightful Investing
Author

admin

Browsing
Sport

Brandon Aiyuk timeline with 49ers: How did we get here?

Sport 5 Mins Read

The relationship between the San Francisco 49ers and wide receiver Brandon Aiyuk has seemingly fizzled out.

Niners general manager John Lynch said during a Jan. 21 news conference that Aiyuk has most likely ‘played his last snap’ for San Francisco.

‘The plan in terms of the transaction, that will come in due time, (but) I think it’s safe to say that he’s played his last snap with the Niners,’ Lynch said. ‘It’s unfortunate, you know, situation that just went awry. I will look long and hard at what could have been done differently, but sometimes (it) just doesn’t work out. And I think this was a case where that happened.’

Aiyuk, 27, was placed on the physically unable to perform (PUP) list and missed the entire 2025 season, including postseason games, due to injuries sustained to his ACL and MCL in Week 7 of the 2024 NFL season.

At some point during the course of the season, Aiyuk’s relationship with the organization went awry. Lynch said he wasn’t sure what led to the fallout with Aiyuk.

‘I wish I knew,’ Lynch said. ‘I can’t help you there. Sorry.’

When asked if there had been communication with Aiyuk, 49ers head coach Kyle Shanahan told reporters ‘there was, but not anymore.’

‘I say it officially stopped for me when last time I tried to get ahold of him and couldn’t,’ Shanahan said. ‘Then tried a couple more times and still couldn’t, and then that matched everyone else that was trying to get ahold of him and couldn’t. Eventually there’s not much of an explanation, because it’s really hard for us and anyone else to understand.’

Shanahan called the situation ‘unfortunate’ and added that he’d never had an experience like this in his 22 years of coaching.

‘It’s confusing, because it’s confusing for all of us,’ Shanahan told reporters. ‘But it eventually becomes, ‘it is what it is’ and you try as hard as you can to fix something that you don’t understand. It’s not like we understand it very well still, but eventually you understand that it’s not going to change and you got to move on with your football team, which is always the most important thing.’

So, what’s next? Lynch said he’d consider trading for a new wide receiver.

‘We’ll explore anything to make our football team better. I think we’ve shown that,’ Lynch told reporters. ‘We’re going to get together and we’re going to put together our plan like we do each and every year. … We’re open to anything that’s going to make our team better.’

Brandon Aiyuk timeline with 49ers

2020

Aiyuk was selected by the 49ers with the 25th overall pick in the 2020 NFL Draft. Aiyuk was drafted out of Arizona State, and before that he played at Sierra College, a junior college in Rocklin, California.

He recorded 60 catches for 748 yards and five touchdowns, appearing in 12 games, in his rookie season. He also ran for two touchdowns in his first year.

2021

In his sophomore season, Aiyuk started 16 games but played in all 17. He finished with 56 catches, 826 yards and five touchdowns.

During a Week 10 game against the Los Angeles Rams, Aiyuk became the fifth-fastest player in franchise history (21 games) to reach 1,000 career receiving yards.

2022

Aiyuk played and started all 17 games in 2022. He recorded his first 1,000-yard season in his third campaign with the 49ers.

He finished with 78 receptions for 1,015 yards and a career-high eight touchdowns.

2023

The 49ers picked up Aiyuk’s fifth-year option on his rookie contract and he followed his 2022 campaign with another 1,000-yard season in 2023.

Aiyuk became the fifth 49ers player to record back-to-back 1,000-yard receiving seasons, joining Jerry Rice (1986-96), Terrell Owens (2000-03), Anquan Boldin (2013-14) and tight end George Kittle (2018-19).

Aiyuk finished the regular season with 75 catches, 1,342 yards and seven touchdowns. His performance earned him second team All-Pro honors.

He then helped the 49ers capture the NFC championship, beating the Detroit Lions 34-31 in the conference title game as he recorded three catches, 68 yards and a touchdown. The 49ers lost the Super Bowl in overtime to the Kansas City Chiefs, 25-22.

2024

Aiyuk signed a four-year, $120 million contract extension with the 49ers.

Unfortunately, he had his 2024 season cut short after he tore his ACL and MCL during a Week 7 loss in a Super Bowl rematch with the Chiefs. He missed the remainder of the season.

Aiyuk finished the season with 25 catches and 374 yards.

2025

Aiyuk went into his sixth NFL season on the PUP list as he recovered from his ACL and MCL injuries.

In November, San Francisco voided all guarantees in Aiyuk’s contract due to lack of communication and failure to complete the deal, according to The Athletic’s Dianna Russini and Michael Silver. They reported that Aiyuk ‘failed to attend meetings and declined to participate in other team activities.’

Aiyuk told the NFL Players Association that he wouldn’t file a grievance in contest.

He was placed on the reserve/left squad list in December.

That same month, Aiyuk posted a video of himself to his YouTube account that showed him driving past the 49ers home stadium, Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, at high speeds exceeding 90 mph, once topping 100 mph, through intersections. The speed limit in that area is 25 mph.

2026

Niners general manager John Lynch says that Aiyuk likely ‘played his last snap’ as a 49er.

Brandon Aiyuk career stats

  • Games played: 69
  • Receptions: 294
  • Yards: 4,305
  • Touchdowns: 25
  • Rush attempts: 13
  • Rush yards: 117
  • Rush touchdowns: 2
This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Sport

Sean Payton has ideal resource for QB crisis: The Tuna

Sport 6 Mins Read

If there’s anyone who can relate to Sean Payton about now – the Denver Broncos coach is navigating a sudden crisis with quarterback Bo Nix knocked out of the AFC championship game with a season-ending fractured bone in his right ankle – it is Bill Parcells.

The Hall of Fame coach, aka ‘The Tuna,’ guided the New York Giants to a Super Bowl 25 crown with backup quarterback Jeff Hostetler replacing Phil Simms for the stretch run after Simms, ironically, went down with a broken right foot in Week 15 of the 1990 season.

Now, 35 years later, Payton’s team is one victory from advancing to Super Bowl 60, needing backup Jarrett Stidham to, well, turn into a modern-day Hostetler.

That Parcells is Payton’s wise mentor, adds another layer to the plot.

‘I’ve spoken with him. He’s ready to go,’ Parcells told USA TODAY Sports on Tuesday.

Parcells knows all too well how Payton, as New Orleans Saints coach, handled the adversity of losing Drew Brees for five games in 2019 with a torn ligament in his right thumb. Enter Teddy Bridgewater. With Payton pushing the buttons, the Saints went 5-0 without the centerpiece of one of the NFL’s most explosive offenses.

That experience for Payton won’t hurt now.

‘It speaks for itself,’ Parcells grumbled. ‘He’s already been through it. He went through it with Brees. So, he’s done it. He knows what he’s doing.’

It was a given that Payton tapped the Tuna this week, with the New England Patriots coming to Empower Field for the showdown on Sunday. Payton was Parcells’ assistant head coach for three seasons with the Dallas Cowboys, beginning in 2003, before landing his first head coaching job with the Saints. They have remained close over the years, and Payton is hardly shy in expressing his reverence for Parcells, 84, vouching for the influence he has had on his coaching philosophy and style.

And their bond is wrapped in enormous success. Payton ranks 11th on the all-time list for NFL coaching victories (194, including postseason) passing his mentor earlier this season. Parcells is 16th with 183 wins and is one of 14 coaches to win multiple Super Bowls.

In addition to football strategy, the Tuna’s psychological methods surely rubbed off on the Broncos coach. Parcells, for example, was one who would set out mousetraps in the locker room to remind players not to fall into a trap. Payton’s been known to use gas cans as a prop, the message being that they had better not run out of gas.

And Lord knows, like Parcells, Payton, 62, can set a tone with crankiness.

There’s even an inspirational Parcells quote displayed in the hallway of the team’s headquarters, as noted by The Denver Post, that reads: Don’t ever let good enough be good enough.

What a great resource to tap into while in the throes of crisis. If I’m Payton, I’m asking my mentor to take me back to messaging he had for his Giants squad – which included the likes of Lawrence Taylor, Carl Banks, Joe Morris and Mark Bavaro – when Simms suffered his season-ending injury.

If I’m not Payton, I’m asking, too.

‘This is literally what I did: I said, ‘Look, we’re not going to lose or not have a chance to play for a championship because of Jeff Hostetler,” Parcells said. ”It’s going to be one of you other guys.’

‘I used a different word for ‘other guys,’ by the way. It begins with mother, okay? I said, ‘It will be one of you ‘other-blanks’ that screws up something that keeps us out. But he won’t do it. He’ll be ready to go.”

Fast-forward to the present and the gist of those team-oriented, tough-love words from Parcells a generation ago might resonate with the cast surrounding Stidham. In other words, dropped passes, missed blocks, blown coverages and needless penalties, for instance, would be no way to support the fill-in quarterback.

Then there’s a key difference. Hostetler, in his fifth season as Simms’ backup, had an opportunity to ramp up to the pressure-packed postseason. He started the final two regular-season games, and the Giants opened the playoffs with a rout. They won the NFC championship game at San Francisco against the 49ers and the Super Bowl against the Buffalo Bills by a combined total of three points.

Stidham, on the other hand, hasn’t thrown a pass in a real game since 2023. There is no ramp-up acclimation. He is immediately thrown into the fire with a Super Bowl berth at stake. A seventh-year pro, ‘Stiddy,’ as he’s called, was one of Payton’s first free agent signings when the coach arrived in 2023. While there’s undoubtedly a comfort level for Stidham in Payton’s system and vice versa, the minimal action equates to a huge unknown.

‘In fairness to what you’ve seen, which is very limited, he’s ready,’ said Payton, mindful that Stidham sparkled during the preseason and presumably on the practice field. ‘I feel like I have a (No.) 2 (quarterback) that’s capable of starting for a number of teams. I know he feels the same way. So, watch out. Just watch.’

For all Payton has done to establish a culture, revamp personnel and bring winning results during his three seasons, Nix’s injury suddenly poses a challenge that could reveal the level of completeness for this mix. The Broncos absorbed the $85 million salary cap hit for cutting Russell Wilson. They have assembled one of the NFL’s best defenses. They dethroned the Kansas City Chiefs as nine-time defending AFC West champs. They earned the No. 1 seed in the AFC playoffs and won the franchise’s first postseason game in a decade.

Now this. Nix underwent surgery on Tuesday.

Sure, he’s been clutch. Including Sunday, Nix led the Broncos to an NFL-high eight victories this season after trailing in the fourth quarter. Then again, it’s never about just one player and Payton is one of the NFL’s winningest coaches for a reason. There are always adjustments, always fires to put out.

This week, the agenda for Payton and staff, including coordinator Joe Lombardi, is to craft the best plan possible that is tailored to Stidham. That’s not to be confused with reinventing the wheel.

‘It’s almost business as usual,’ Parcells said. ‘Maybe you might have something in there that you’ve seen him do well in practice, on a couple of particular routes that he likes maybe better than (Nix) did. It’s just things like that. You’ve got to talk to the player, too. Find out what he’s confident about, what he feels like. So, you spend a little time doing that prior to making your game plan.’

Parcells’ pupil will surely check those boxes. And then some. Payton will also bring the mindset that the mission is hardly impossible.

Contact Jarrett Bell at jbell@usatoday.com. Follow him on X: @JarrettBell

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Sport

1976 gold medalist Dorothy Hamill talks Olympics on USA TODAY podcast

Sport 3 Mins Read

USA TODAY Sports released its latest ‘Milan Magic’ episode covering the 2026 Winter Olympics. In preparation for the Milano Cortina Winter Games, ‘Milan Magic’ hosts Christine Brennan and Brian Boitano — an Olympic gold medal champion figure skater — are covering all topics regarding the games extensively and sitting down with Winter Olympics legends in order to get a behind-the-scenes look at these remarkable winter events.

After an enthralling conversation with ‘Quad God’ Ilia Malinin, the duo have returned, now speaking with 1976 Olympic gold medalist Dorothy Hamill, an icon of the figure skating world.

Hamill did far more than win in the Olympics though. She also won the 1976 World Championships in Gothenburg, Sweden, after winning silver each of the two years prior. She is a four-time United States champion as well (1969, 1974-76).

Despite being diagnosed with osteoarthritis at 40 years old and suffering from chronic back pain. Hamill continued to participate in skating events and shows until 2013.

Hamill spoke on numerous topics including the pressure facing most Olympic figure skaters as they take the ice. She even recalled a time when competing in Munich where the home crowd didn’t appreciate the marks given to the German skater before Hamill, prompting a cascade of boos as Hamill took the ice. Hamill said, ‘I just wanted to get it over with.’ Boitano expanded, recalling that Hamill’s father needed to come over to her to calm her down before she skated, and that Hamill’s toughness to be able to perform one of the greatest routines of her life to that point as boos rained down was one of the best moments of Hamill’s career.

Hamill also took time to discuss the difference in figure skating between now and when she competed.

‘It’s a whole new sport,’ Hamill said. She specifically praised Alysa Liu, the gold medal winner at the 2025 World Championships. Liu contemplated retiring at just 16 years old, even taking a two-year hiatus from the sport in order to experience life outside of her sport.

‘I just have so much admiration for her,’ stated Hamill. ‘In figure skating, if you take two weeks off…I could never do anything, so it’s really special.’

Liu will be participating in the 2026 Olympics after a strong performance at the U.S. championships.

Another aspect of the sport that has changed so drastically since Hamill’s time as a competitor is the involvement of social media.

‘I never had to deal with that,’ Hamill said. ‘For me, if there was even one bad review in the newspaper, that was the only thing I could remember. And that would stick with me forever.’

Hamill’s advice to young skaters is to stay away from social media as much as possible. Even in the accolades, there can be negative connotations that will stick with athletes. She notes that people often tend to look for criticisms while drowning out praise and that can have seriously negative effects on competitors ahead of big competitions.

Those words of wisdom from Hamill and much more are available to ‘Milan Magic’ listeners. You can listen to USA TODAY’s podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Watch full episodes on YouTube or on USA TODAY.

Subscribe to USA TODAY’s newsletter: Chasing Gold: Your guide to the 2026 Milano Cortina Winter Games.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Sport

Which 5 active NHL players have the most multi-point games?

Sport 3 Mins Read

Connor McDavid, Nikita Kucherov, Nathan MacKinnon, Macklin Celebrini and Leon Draisaitl are making multi-point outings appear easier than tying skates. 

McDavid and MacKinnon lead with 27, Kucherov has 25, and Celebrini and Draisaitl trail with 20.

A total of 25 NHL players have at least 15 multi-point games heading into play on Wednesday, Jan. 21, and 16 players have at least five games with three points each.

Their otherworldly production creates an ideal opportunity to look at and celebrate the five active players with the most multi-point games over their storied careers. Of this top five, only one sits in the top 10 among all players, active or not.

Most multi-point games among active NHL players

5. Connor McDavid 

McDavid has 356 multi-point outings in 763 career games. He has notched at least two points in about 47% of the games he’s played. That’s 10 percentage points higher than Sidney Crosby.

Only Mario Lemieux (54%) and Wayne Gretzky (55%) scored two or more points at a higher rate than No. 97. 

The Oilers captain also has the most multi-point games in a season among active players, reaching 45 twice.

4. Patrick Kane

Patrick Kane, the highest-scoring active American player, has 362 multi-point outings in 1,337 games. While he doesn’t rack up multi-point games as he did during his glory days with the Chicago Blackhawks, Kane has amassed at least two points at a 27% clip.

Unlike McDavid, you don’t have to worry too much about Kane’s stat changing quickly, as he has eight multi-point games this season and just one in the previous 11 matches. 

Kane’s career best of 31 multi-point games occurred in 2018-19. 

3. Evgeni Malkin

Evgeni Malkin only trails Crosby and Lemieux on the Pittsburgh Penguins’ multi-point outings chart, with 369 in 1,246 games.

He scores at least two points in about 30% of the games he plays. His most multi-point games in a season was 32 in 2008-09, when he also secured a career-high 113 points. 

Malkin got off to a prolific start this season, securing six multi-point outings in the opening 10 games. However, he has just three in the 23 games since. 

2. Alex Ovechkin

The second Russian on this list, Alex Ovechkin, sits 11th all-time in multi-point outings, with 463. He’s seven behind 10th-place Ron Francis.

Having played 1,541 games, Ovechkin gets at least two points in about 30% of his games. He accumulated the most multi-point outings during the 2009-10 season (35) despite playing only 72 games. 

While slowing down is a byproduct of the aging process, the 40-year-old continues to play at a remarkably high level. He has 12 multi-point outings in 2025-26.

1. Sidney Crosby 

Crosby is fifth all-time for players with the most multi-point games. No. 87 has 512 multi-point outings in 1,400 games and sits behind Mark Messier (513), Marcel Dionne (513), Jaromir Jagr (540) and Gretzky (824).

The Penguins’ captain secures multi-point outings at a roughly 37% clip, and his best season came in 2006-07, when he finished with 38 multi-point outings in 79 games. 

He has 19 in 48 games so far this season, equating to a 40% rate.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Investing

More High-Grade Gold in Extensional Drilling Points to Growth Potential at Kamperman

Investing 5 Mins Read

Astral Resources NL (ASX: AAR) (Astral or the Company) is pleased to report assay results received from a 17-hole reverse circulation (RC) drill program for 2,954 metres completed at the Kamperman Deposit, part of its 100%-owned Feysville Gold Project (Feysville), located ~14km south of Kalgoorlie in Western Australia (Figure 1).

HIGHLIGHTS

Feysville Project

  • Assay results received for 17 RC holes (2,954m) drilled recently at Kamperman, part of the 100%-owned Feysville Gold Project in WA. The program tested a variety of targets designed both to increase the Mineral Resource and improve understanding of the deposit, with a specific focus on high-grade zones. Best results include:
    • 14m at 6.79g/t Au from 192m including 2m at 23.8g/t Au from 193m (FRC463)
    • 13m at 6.60g/t Au from 44m including 1m at 57.6g/t Au from 46m and 1m at 10.9g/t Au from 48m, 4m at 2.06g/t Au from 62m and 4m at 3.81g/t Au from 88m (FRC457)
    • 21m at 3.11g/t Au from 115m including 1m at 13.4g/t Au from 132m (FRC460)
    • 15m at 3.70g/t Au from 123m including 1m at 16.4g/t Au from 124m and 1m at 21.1g/t Au from 135m, 6m at 2.79g/t Au from 158m, 23m at 2.57g/t Au from 180m including 3m at 13.7g/t Au from 197m and 3m at 2.57g/t Au from 208m (FRC452)
    • 14m at 2.66g/t Au from 179m (FRC461)
    • 27m at 0.78g/t Au from 21m and 25m at 1.68g/t Au from 50m including 1m at 11.7g/t Au from 59m and 1m at 10.5g/t Au from 62m (FRC453)
    • 6m at 4.10g/t Au from 210m including 1m at 13.4g/t Au from 212m (FRC454)
  • The drill program has confirmed the presence of north-west striking high-grade gold mineralisation that is not currently included in the Kamperman Mineral Resource model, as well as confirming depth extensions to the southern lode and additional high-grade mineralisation in the footwall of the southern lode.
Mandilla Project
  • A 4-hole (1,641m) DD program has been completed on the eastern flank of the Theia deposit, part of the 100%-owned Mandilla Gold Project. The drill program was designed to test for a potential steeply dipping sub-parallel mineralised structure to the east of Theia. Best results include:
    • 4.15m at 33.2g/t Au from 164.3m including 0.5m at 269.6g/t Au from 165m, 12.13m at 1.29g/t Au from 173.87m including 0.3m at 23.4g/t Au from 173.87m and 1.79m at 6.21g/t Au from 253.47m including 0.58m at 17.6g/t Au from 253.82m (AMRCD140)
    • 0.3m at 30.7g/t Au from 336.26m (AMRCD139)
  • Quartz, pyrite and visible gold1 were intersected in each of the four holes, confirming the potential for Theia to host additional mineralised structures.
  • A 3-hole (775.6-m) DD program was also completed at Theia. The program was designed to target a previously intersected “230 Shear” structure. Drilling successfully intersected this distinct, narrow high-grade shear zone with best results including:
    • 1.57m at 22.8g/t Au from 168.59m including 0.6m at 59.2g/t Au from 169.56m, 7.12m at 1.42g/t Au from 175.08m including 0.3m at 25.9g/t Au from 175.51m, 8.73m at 0.95g/t Au from 222.44m and 4.90m at 1.28g/t Au from 259m including 0.3m at 13.7g/t Au from 262.07m (AMRCD137)
    • 2.27m at 4.94g/t Au from 161m including 0.47m at 22.8g/t Au from 161.93m and 5.33m at 1.08g/t Au from 202.85m (AMRCD138)

Astral Resources’ Managing Director Marc Ducler said: “The assay results from the recent RC program at Feysville have demonstrated the excellent potential for both the overall gold grade and the deposit size at Kamperman to increase.

“The program was highly successful in achieving its aims to extend interpreted high-grade gold zones beyond the existing Mineral Resource.

“The centrally located drill-hole, FRC457, returned an outstanding intercept of 13m at 6.60g/t Au, representing a very successful extension to a north-west striking high-grade ore shoot which appears to be projecting beyond the current deposit limits.

“Drill-hole FRC463 also returned a spectacular high-grade intercept. Drilled south and well beyond the current Resource testing for a south-plunging ore zone at depth, drilling successfully intersected 14m at 6.79g/t Au from 192m, to confirm one of our deepest zones of high-grade gold mineralisation so far and providing us with a hint of the greater potential still remaining at Kamperman.

“Over the Christmas period, Astral received notice from the DMPE of the grant of our Mining Licence application over areas of Feysville. This marks an important step as we progress towards submission of the Mining Proposal and execution of a JV agreement with Mineral Mining Services for the development of the Think Big Gold Mine. This would establish an early revenue opportunity for Astral against the backdrop of record gold prices to assist with securing overall development funding for the Mandilla Gold Project.

“Meanwhile at the cornerstone Theia deposit at Mandilla, we received assay results from two diamond drill programs, with further outstanding high-grade intercepts recorded.

“The first, a 3-hole program targeting the “230 Shear”, returned results such as 1.57m at 22.7g/t Au and 2.27m at 4.94g/t Au in separate holes, confirming the presence of this discrete, narrow, high-grade shear zone which strikes through the main Theia deposit.

“Importantly the shear, intersected in all three holes, remains mineralised at depth, with the potential to delineate additional sub-parallel repeats both within and extensional to Theia.

“A second 4-hole diamond drill program tested a potential steeply dipping sub-parallel structure to the east of Theia. As an initial positive sign visible gold was logged in all four holes, with a best result including a very high-grade intersection of 4.15m at 33.2g/t Au from 164.3m in hole AMDRCD137.

“Following our successful capital raise completed in December, Astral has funds on hand to maintain an aggressive exploration focus and complete the Mandilla DFS targeting a Final Investment Decision – all while maintaining a significant component of the equity requirement for development of the Mandilla Gold Project.

“Astral has ramped up exploration activities for 2026 with three drill rigs (2 RC and 1 DD rig) currently operating on site.”

Click here for the full ASX Release

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Excellent Results from 2025 Core Drilling Program at McDermitt

Investing 2 Mins Read

Jindalee Lithium Limited (Jindalee, or the Company; ASX: JLL, OTCQX: JNDAF) is pleased to report assay results from the drilling program at the McDermitt Lithium Project completed late 2025.

  • All holes returned strong lithium and magnesium intercepts from shallow depths, including:
    • R92: 36.5m @ 1951 ppm Li & 5.23% Mg from 24.5m
    • R93: 15.5m @ 1456 ppm Li & 5.45% Mg from 3.6m
    • R94: 66.0m @ 1599 ppm Li & 4.12% Mg from 0.4m
    • R95: 110.6m @ 1519 ppm Li & 4.80% Mg from 23.0m
    • R96: 20.1m @ 1514 ppm Li & 5.29% Mg from 0.4m
  • Three holes twinning earlier RC holes confirmed good correlation with RC results
  • High-quality core samples retained for metallurgical testwork (lithium and magnesium)

Background

On 3 December 2025 Jindalee announced the completion of a large diameter core drilling program at the Company’s 100% owned McDermitt Lithium Project1 (McDermitt, Project), one of the largest lithium deposits in the United States (US) and of global significance2 (Figure 1).

The program comprised five PQ3 (8.5cm diameter) core holes designed to obtain samples for metallurgical testwork to further optimise lithium recoveries, as well as unlock value from the significant magnesium endowment at McDermitt, via the value optimisation program announced late October 20253. The drilling also provided valuable geological and geotechnical data on the deposit, with three of the holes collared to twin reverse circulation (RC) holes drilled in 2021 and 20224.

Discussion

All five holes returned strong lithium and magnesium intercepts from shallow depths as summarised above and in Annexure A. Three holes (R94, R95 and R96) were collared to twin RC holes drilled previously by Jindalee (MDRC-24, MDRC-21 and MDRC-22 respectively), with assays from the recent core holes showing good correlation with the RC results (refer Table 1). Jindalee will now undertake detailed geostatistical analysis to further evaluate the relationship between the results from RC and core drilling to help determine the optimal drilling methods for future programs.

Click here for the full ASX Release

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
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

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
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
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