Author

admin

Browsing

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

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

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

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

The graphite market was dominated by oversupply, trade disputes and China’s continued grip in 2025.

Prices hit multi-year lows as a US investigation into Chinese anode imports highlighted the vulnerability of the electric vehicle (EV) supply chain, with tariffs and anti-dumping duties creating uncertainty for North American producers.

Although natural graphite output has risen from 966,000 metric tons in 2020 to 1.6 million metric tons in 2024, China accounts for nearly all recent supply growth and also dominates refining.

The nation is projected to control roughly 80 percent of battery-grade graphite production through 2035.

Outside the Asian nation, analysts note that US and European producers face high costs and limited alternatives, with trade tensions and tariffs further constraining non-China supply.

While graphite projects in Madagascar and Mozambique offer some diversification of supply, graphite refining capacity remains heavily concentrated, leaving the market exposed to supply shocks.

A US-China trade agreement made late in 2025 eased volatility in the natural anode market, but oversupply and weak demand continue to pressure flake graphite prices as the year closed.

“The agreement between the US and China to roll back planned export restrictions on markets such as graphite is set to provide a stable picture for the next year,” wrote Fastmarkets’ Andrew Saucer in a November update.

“However, for graphite, it leaves many existing trade barriers in place which should solidify shifts in how China and the US are finding alternatives to each other in their natural and synthetic supply chains.’

Graphite prices under pressure

Speaking at the Benchmark Week conference in November 2025, Adam Webb, head of energy raw materials at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, explained why flake graphite prices — as well as the majority of the battery metals suite — saw weak prices through early 2025, despite a promising demand outlook.

“Essentially, what’s happened here is demand has grown very strongly, but supply growth has actually outpaced demand growth,” Webb said. “Therefore you’ve got the markets in a surplus, and that weighs on prices.”

As graphite prices sank in 2024, a ripple effect impacted supply, hitting the production side hard.

“With flake graphite, you’ll notice it’s actually supply has increased less than demand, and that is because prices were so low that in 2024 you had significant Chinese capacity come offline,’ Webb commented.

‘Also in flake graphite you have competition with synthetic graphite.”

Graphite anodes remain the dominant choice for lithium-ion batteries, but price divergence has sharpened competition between natural and synthetic materials.

Synthetic graphite is expected to retain the largest market share in the near term, thanks to its superior fast-charging performance, durability and electrolyte compatibility. However, natural graphite is gaining attention for its lower cost, higher capacity and lower energy intensity. This competition has divided the market as prices for flake graphite remain low, further pressured by weak demand in the industrial segment.

“Flake pricing on the other hand continues to feel the impact of lower steel demand in 2025 amid declines in Asian and European production in the first seven months of the year,” a September Fastmarkets report notes.

“Expectations among market participants are that production in China will continue to decline through the end of the year and continue to weigh on overall global production.”

Energy storage surge to underpin long-term graphite demand

Despite the market challenges noted by Benchmark’s Webb, the metals consultancy and price reporting agency forecasts 9 percent growth in graphite demand between 2025 and 2035.

This uptick will be strongly supported by a rise in the EV and battery energy storage system (BESS) segments.

“Flake graphite, you’ll see that that price is going up despite the oversupplied market, and that is because to meet that rising demand, there needs to be more supply coming online, and a lot of that supply coming online is high cost. So that’s going to push up the price support, basically, gradually through time,” Webb said.

The BESS market emerged as a major growth driver in 2025, reinforcing long-term demand for battery raw materials, including graphite. As Benchmark outlines, the market for BESS is expected to register roughly 44 percent growth for 2025, almost double the rate of overall lithium-ion battery demand.

As a result, energy storage is set to account for a quarter of total battery demand in 2025.

In North America, momentum has been uneven.

While interest in large-scale storage remains strong, BESS integrators faced mounting pressure in 2025 due to limited domestic battery cell supply, project delays and shrinking margins.

Several leading system providers reported weaker financial results, highlighting the risks of heavy reliance on imported cells and fragmented supply chains.

In Europe, deployed energy storage capacity surpassed 100 gigawatts by November, with batteries accounting for the vast majority of new installations. China, by contrast, saw a renewed surge in energy storage battery shipments. Policy reforms introduced under “Document No. 136” shifted renewable power toward market-based pricing and removed mandatory storage requirements, allowing battery projects to compete on commercial returns.

Together, these regional dynamics underline the growing importance of stationary storage in the global battery market. As BESS capacity expands alongside EVs, demand for graphite anodes is expected to remain structurally strong, even as supply chains and pricing face continued adjustment.

Establishing an ex-China anode supply chain

At Benchmark Week, industry insiders agreed graphite demand will continue to rise through the decade, but the anode supply chain remains constrained by China’s dominance and the high cost of building alternatives elsewhere.

Today, more than 90 percent of battery-grade anode material is sourced from China, a concentration that has become increasingly untenable for western automakers and cell manufacturers.

“Customers are actively looking for diversification,” said Michael O’Kronley, CEO of Novonix (ASX:NVX,OTCPL:NVNXF), noting that supply security has shifted from a long-term aspiration to an immediate priority.

Yet replacing Chinese supply is proving far from straightforward.

A panel featuring graphite executives highlighted that anode qualification can take years, requiring extensive testing to ensure materials perform consistently over a battery’s full lifespan.

“Battery materials aren’t qualified overnight,” O’Kronley said. “It takes years of co-development and patient capital.”

Cost remains the central obstacle. Building an anode plant in North America can cost three to 10 times more than in China, while customers remain reluctant to pay a premium. “A new supply chain has to be paid for somewhere,” O’Kronley warned, arguing that government support is essential if diversification is to scale.

Natural graphite producers face similar pressures.

Financing has become more difficult amid weak prices, even as long-term demand expectations remain strong.

“We expect demand growth closer to 2030,” said Patrice Boulanger, vice president of sales, marketing and business at Québec-focused Nouveau Monde Graphite (NYSE:NMG), adding that government offtake agreements are increasingly critical to unlocking private financing.

Despite growing interest in silicon, lithium metal and other next-generation anodes, the panelists were unanimous that graphite will remain dominant.

“Graphite is clearly here to stay,” said Viren Hira of Syrah Resources (ASX:SYR,OTCPL:SYAAF), with both natural and synthetic materials expected to underpin battery growth through at least the next decade.

Adding context during his own presentation at Benchmark Week, Webb outlined how cost dynamics are reshaping the anode market, particularly the balance between synthetic and natural graphite.

“On the anode side, we’ve seen a move towards synthetic graphite,” he said, noting that the shift has been driven less by performance and more by economics. Producers, he explained, have increasingly turned to lower-quality, lower-cost feedstocks, enabling them to reduce production costs.

As a result, prices for synthetic anode material have fallen, making it more competitive and supporting its growing share of battery anode demand.

Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Cobalt metal prices have trended steadily higher since September of last year, entering 2026 at US$56,414 per metric ton and touching highs unseen since July 2022.

The cobalt market staged a dramatic reversal in 2025, shifting from deep oversupply to structural tightening after decisive intervention by the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

Prices began last year near nine year lows amid a lingering glut, but surged after the DRC, responsible for roughly three-quarters of global supply, imposed an export ban in February, later replaced by strict quotas.

By the end of the year, cobalt metal prices had more than doubled, underscoring how quickly supply-side policy reshaped market fundamentals. What emerged was not a demand-driven recovery, but a supply-led reset. Indonesian output, largely tied to nickel processing, helped cushion the shock but proved insufficient to replace lost Congolese units.

As inventories thinned and quotas capped future exports, the market exited 2025 near balance, setting the stage for a tighter and more volatile cobalt landscape heading into 2026.

Cobalt chokepoints: DRC dominance, China and the Lobito Corridor

With the concentration of cobalt output stemming from two nations, supply chain security has come into focus. An issue Roman Aubry, nickel and cobalt analyst at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence expects to last through 2026.

“2025 has demonstrated the risks associated with having a single country being

He added: “Looking ahead to 2026 it’s clear that the market has to anticipate continued uncertainty from the DRC. While they’ve announced a detailed quota system for the next two years, the DRC reserves the right to adjust it as it sees fit. Given the current ex-DRC cobalt stocks, Benchmark expects there to be significant risk of demand destruction as we approach the end of the year, therefore it is likely the DRC will need to adjust the export quota.”

Concern over China’s control of battery and critical metal supply chains is also likely to carry over through the year, as tensions between Washington and Beijing oscillate and the US looks to fortify its access to the metals.

Aubry pointed to the Lobito Corridor as a key factor in the US securing ex-China supply.

The major rail and port project linking the mineral-rich Copperbelt of the DRC and Zambia to Angola’s Atlantic coast, could reshape the global cobalt supply chain by lowering export costs, speeding transit times and diversifying routes away from China‑dominated infrastructure.

The US International Development Finance Corporation has committed hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to modernize the corridor’s rail and port facilities, potentially boosting annual transport capacity by an order of magnitude and cutting costs by as much as 30 percent compared with existing routes.

“In regards to Western-China relations, we’ve seen the US become increasingly conscious of its reliance on China refining for critical minerals, taking steps to improve ties with the DRC,” said Aubry. “This has mainly come in the form of a strategic agreement to develop the Lobito rail corridor, which would allow the DRC to export cobalt directly to the Atlantic, as well as the establishment of a coordinated Strategic Minerals Reserve within the DRC.”

Is cobalt substitution in the cards?

Before the DRC levied export controls over cobalt exports human rights and child labour concerns around artisinal cobalt extraction plagued the sector.

Paired with the supply chain challenges, battery manufacturers began shifting chemistry away from cobalt-rich formulas, like nickel-cobalt-manganese (NCM) and lithium-iron-phiosphate (LFP) began growing in market share.

In 2025, demand for nickel-cobalt-manganese (NCM) battery cells remained strong in markets focused on longer driving range and performance, particularly in North America and Europe, but lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cells continued their rapid ascent, driven by cost advantages and growing adoption in China and entry-level electric vehicles (EVs).

Industry forecasts project LFP’s share of global battery cell capacity to exceed 60 percent in 2025, reflecting broader shifts toward lower-cost chemistry amid affordability pressures, while NCM and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA) cells continue to dominate premium segments where energy density remains critical.

Amid a shrinking EV market share, Aubry pointed to overall growth in the EV segment, as well as cobalt’s other end uses as factors likely to support demand.

“While battery chemistries are expected to shift towards lower-cobalt or cobalt- free chemistries, the volume of EV batteries is expected to more than offset this,” he explained.

“From all applications, cobalt demand is expected to grow almost 80 percent in the next decade,

He added: “Outside of the EV space, portables are an area of significant growth, particularly batteries for newer technologies like drones. Industrial applications also present a stable source of growth.”

Market volatility drives need for raw materials hedging

During a presentation at Benchmark Week 2025, Casper Rawles, COO at Benchmark Intelligence, highlighted the growing value of hedging for companies operating in the battery raw materials space.

According to Benchmark data, raw materials could account for 20 percent to 40 percent of battery costs by 2030, exceeding 50 percent for some chemistries.

For EV manufacturers such as BYD (OTCPL:BYDDF), annual spending on critical battery materials could exceed US$2 billion, leaving margins highly exposed to price swings.

Against that backdrop, Rawles underscored the need for more sophisticated hedging strategies, noting that shifts in sentiment, supply, demand and geopolitics can reprice these markets with little warning.

Hedging allows companies to manage commodity price volatility by offsetting exposure in the physical market with positions in the futures market.

Producers and consumers typically hedge either to lock in prices that protect margins or to secure fixed pricing tied to external contracts, buying or selling futures to counterbalance their underlying risk. In practice, firms can tailor these strategies to reduce price exposure partially or eliminate it altogether, depending on their risk tolerance.

As Rawles explained, cobalt’s 2025 price rebound emphasizes how exposed the market is to geopolitics, with the DRC’s export controls triggering a rapid reversal from oversupply to scarcity.

“Ultimately we saw an export quota being put in place. Now that quota is pretty limited,’ said Rawles.

‘When we think about the type of volumes we’re expecting to be needed by the market it’s really not going to be sufficient to fulfill market demand. That really shows how quickly the fortunes of these minerals can change,” he added, noting that the DRC’s dominance gives it outsized influence over global pricing.

Rawles stressed that cobalt volatility is no longer driven by supply and demand alone, but by sentiment and geopolitics, with major implications for battery makers and automakers, where raw materials account for a large share of costs.

“Even if you think you know the outlook at the start of the year, that can change in a heartbeat,” he said.

Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Jim Wiederhold, commodity indices product manager at Bloomberg, shares his commodities outlook for 2026, saying that while precious metals dominated last year, there’s potential for a rotation toward industrial metals like copper in the year ahead.

‘The fundamental story for industrial is very strong,’ he said.

‘There’s potential huge supply/demand imbalances coming in the future.’

Securities Disclosure: I, Charlotte McLeod, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Exploration drilling underway and PFS-level technical programs ongoing at the Company’s Saskatchewan gold project

Fortune Bay Corp. (TSXV: FOR,OTC:FTBYF) (FWB: 5QN) (OTCQB: FTBYF) (‘Fortune Bay’ or the ‘Company’) is entering 2026 with a strengthened balance sheet and a clear strategic focus on advancing its Goldfields Gold Project (‘Goldfields’ or the ‘Project’), a gold development asset in Saskatchewan, one of the world’s top-tier mining jurisdictions.

Following a year of significant technical and corporate progress in 2025, the Company is fully funded to execute its planned 2026 program at Goldfields, centered on; 1) project development work, that includes advancing toward a Prefeasibility Study (‘PFS’) in tandem with permitting activities, and 2) exploration drilling targeting additional near-mine ounces that could further strengthen Goldfields’ excellent economics. Exploration drilling has resumed after the holiday break and initial drill results are expected in the first quarter of 2026.

Goldfields is very well-positioned for advancement, with excellent PEA economics, a high-confidence mineral resource base, established infrastructure, and the benefit of Saskatchewan’s stable, top-tier jurisdiction.‘ said Dale Verran, CEO of Fortune Bay. ‘The work completed in 2025 strengthened the project’s technical foundation and firmly set the stage for expedited advancement. With funding secured, our priority in 2026 is disciplined execution, advancing development while growing the resource and positioning Goldfields to unlock meaningful value as the gold market continues to strengthen.’

2025: A Year of Demonstrating Project Value and Setting the Stage for Advancement

Throughout 2025, Fortune Bay advanced Goldfields through a series of key milestones aimed at strengthening technical confidence, improving execution readiness, and positioning the project for the next stage of value creation.

Updated Preliminary Economic Assessment: Defining an Expedited Development Path

In September 2025, Fortune Bay completed an independent Updated Preliminary Economic Assessment (‘Updated PEA’) for Goldfields, confirming the project as a robust open-pit development asset supported by a well-defined resource base, existing infrastructure, and Saskatchewan’s stable regulatory environment.

At a base-case gold price of US$2,600/oz, the Updated PEA outlined after-tax economics of C$610 million NPV (5%) and a 44% IRR, with initial capital estimated at C$301 million. At spot gold prices at the time of the study (US$3,650/oz), the after-tax NPV (5%) increased to C$1.25 billion, highlighting the project’s strong sensitivity to gold prices. On average, every US$100 change in the gold price assumption results in an approximate C$61 million change in after-tax NPV.

The Updated PEA positions Goldfields for accelerated advancement toward construction by maintaining throughput below 5,000 tpd, enabling the Project to remain within the provincial permitting framework. This expedited pathway is supported by established infrastructure, a de-risked resource base (with 97% of ounces in the mine plan classified as Indicated), and a valid provincially approved Environmental Impact Statement (‘EIS’) from 2008 for a 5,000 tpd open-pit operation.

To read the full release visit https://fortunebaycorp.com/news/post/fortune-bay-announces-updated-pea-for-goldfields-saskatchewan.

Permitting Work: Advancing Execution Readiness

Alongside the Updated PEA, Fortune Bay advanced environmental baseline studies during 2025, building upon extensive historical datasets and the existing EIS. Both aquatic and terrestrial baseline environmental studies were completed in late 2025, with final reporting and ongoing monitoring continuing into early 2026 and beyond.

In addition, a well-attended community tour of Indigenous communities and municipalities was completed in November 2025 to support early engagement on the development of Goldfields. Productive meetings were also held with Chiefs and Council members from local Indigenous nations to introduce the project and seek initial feedback from leadership.

Post-PEA Technical Programs: Advancing Toward PFS-Level Studies

Following completion of the Updated PEA, the Company initiated a series of post-PEA technical programs aimed at further de-risking the project and advancing studies toward the PFS level. This work included high-resolution topographic (LiDAR) survey, waste rock characterization, metallurgical testwork, and planning for additional PFS-level work programs.

Exploration: Positioning for Resource Expansion

In parallel with project development work, Fortune Bay refined exploration targets across the Goldfields property, integrating historical drilling, updated geological modeling, and insights gained through the PEA process. This work directly informed the design of the current exploration drilling program targeting additional near-mine ounces that could further strengthen Goldfields’ exceptional economics and improve the overall development profile. 

2026: Funded, Focused, and Advancing

With funding secured, Fortune Bay’s 2026 work program is designed to translate the technical and permitting progress achieved in 2025 into tangible value advancement at Goldfields. The Company enters the year with a clear operational focus and the financial capacity to execute its plans without near-term capital constraints.

Exploration

A central component of the 2026 program is resource expansion drilling, targeting priority areas identified through recent geological modeling and insights gained from the Updated PEA. The drilling is intended to test the potential to further strengthen project scale, extend mine life, and enhance the overall development profile. Initial drill results are expected in the first quarter of 2026.

Project Development

The Company plans to advance three key project development strategies in parallel; 1) PFS-level work streams, 2) Saskatchewan-led environmental approvals, and 3) community consultation and engagement.

PFS-level work streams will include expanded geotechnical, metallurgical and waste rock geochemistry investigations. Metallurgical and waste rock studies in 2025 were scoped to inform and support design of optimized PFS-level investigations in 2026. An integrated work program is being developed to reduce the amount of drilling required to the extent possible.

  • Geotechnical drilling and investigations, in tandem with hydrogeological survey, will expand on historical studies to further characterize host-rock physical properties and support optimization of the open pit design. Surface investigations and soil profile testing will also be carried out to support higher-confidence infrastructure design, including that of the tailings storage facility, process plant and other site infrastructure.
  • Metallurgical studies will include expanded testing to better constrain parameters around process plant design and reagent consumption, including broad-scale variability testing.
  • Waste rock characterisation study will be carried out, including acid base accounting and geochemistry, to support waste rock facility design and complement site water balance and environmental (permitting) advancement.

Results from recent baseline environmental studies and the waste rock characterization program will be integrated with feedback from early engagement activities and the project scope outlined in the Updated PEA to inform development of the Technical Proposal. The Technical Proposal is the first step in the provincial environmental assessment process and will be used as a basis for initiation of regulatory engagement with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment in Q1 of 2026. This work will build upon the Provincially-approved 2008 Environmental Impact Statement for a 5,000 tpd open-pit operation. Community engagement will continue in 2026 to strengthen relationships and continue meaningful dialogue on the project with the public and local Indigenous Nations, including rights holders.

The technical progress achieved at Goldfields in 2025, and the fully funded program planned for 2026, reinforce the Company’s strategy of disciplined, cycle-aware advancement of a high-quality gold asset in a top-tier jurisdiction.

Technical Report & Qualified Person

Details for the Updated PEA for Goldfields are provided in the technical report titled ‘Goldfields Project Updated NI 43-101 Technical Report & Preliminary Economic Assessment, Saskatchewan, Canada‘, dated October 20, 2025, prepared by Kevin Murray, P.Eng.; Scott C. Elfen, P.E.; James Millard, P.Geo.; Jonathan Cooper, P.Eng.; Marc Schulte, P.Eng.; Cliff Revering, P.Eng.; and Ron Uken, Pr.Sci.Nat. for Fortune Bay Corp. The technical report is available under the Company’s issuer profile on SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca) and on the Company’s website at www.fortunebaycorp.com.

The technical and scientific information in this news release has been reviewed and approved by Gareth Garlick P.Geo., Vice-President Technical Services of the Company, who is a Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101. Mr. Garlick is an employee of Fortune Bay and is not independent of the Company under NI 43‑101.

About Fortune Bay

Fortune Bay Corp. (TSXV:FOR,OTC:FTBYF; FWB:5QN; OTCQB:FTBYF) is a Canadian mineral exploration and development company with assets in Canada and Mexico. The Company’s primary focus is advancing the Goldfields Gold Project in Saskatchewan, Canada. Fortune Bay also holds the Poma Rosa Gold-Copper Project in Chiapas, Mexico, as well as an optioned uranium project portfolio in the Athabasca Basin of Saskatchewan. Fortune Bay continues to evaluate and advance its portfolio in a disciplined manner while maintaining a strong technical foundation and prudent capital management. For more information, please visit www.fortunebaycorp.com or contact info@fortunebaycorp.com.

On behalf of Fortune Bay Corp.

‘Dale Verran’
Chief Executive Officer
902-334-1919

Cautionary Statement

Information set forth in this news release contains forward-looking statements that are based on assumptions as of the date of this news release. These statements reflect management’s current estimates, beliefs, intentions, and expectations. They are not guarantees of future performance. Words such as ‘expects’, ‘aims’, ‘anticipates’, ‘targets’, ‘goals’, ‘projects’, ‘intends’, ‘plans’, ‘believes’, ‘seeks’, ‘estimates’, ‘continues’, ‘may’, variations of such words, and similar expressions and references to future periods, are intended to identify such forward-looking statements, and include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to: the results of the Updated PEA, including future Project opportunities, future operating and capital costs, closure costs, AISC, the projected NPV, IRR, timelines, permit timelines, and the ability to obtain the requisite permits, economics and associated returns of the Project, the technical viability of the Project, the market and future price of and demand for gold, the environmental impact of the Project, and the ongoing ability to work cooperatively with stakeholders, including Indigenous Nations, local Municipalities and local levels of government. Since forward-looking statements are based on assumptions and address future events and conditions, by their very nature they involve inherent risks and uncertainties. Although these statements are based on information currently available to the Company, the Company provides no assurance that actual results will meet management’s expectations. Risks, uncertainties and other factors involved with forward- looking information could cause actual events, results, performance, prospects and opportunities to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information. Forward looking information in this news release includes, but is not limited to, the Company’s objectives, goals or future plans, statements, exploration results, potential mineralization, the estimation of mineral resources, exploration and mine development plans, timing of the commencement of operations and estimates of market conditions. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking information include, but are not limited to failure to identify mineral resources, failure to convert estimated mineral resources to reserves, the inability to complete a feasibility study which recommends a production decision, the preliminary nature of metallurgical test results, delays in obtaining or failures to obtain required governmental, environmental or other project approvals, political risks, inability to fulfill the duty to accommodate Indigenous Nations and local Municipalities, uncertainties relating to the availability and costs of financing needed in the future, changes in equity markets, inflation, changes in exchange rates, fluctuations in commodity prices, delays in the development of projects, capital and operating costs varying significantly from estimates and the other risks involved in the mineral exploration and development industry, and those risks set out in the Company’s public documents filed on SEDAR. Although the Company believes that the assumptions and factors used in preparing the forward-looking information in this news release are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on such information, which only applies as of the date of this news release, and no assurance can be given that such events will occur in the disclosed time frames or at all. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, other than as required by law. For more information on Fortune Bay, readers should refer to Fortune Bay’s website at www.fortunebaycorp.com.

Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in policies of TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

SOURCE Fortune Bay Corp.

View original content to download multimedia: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2026/20/c5036.html

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

(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

MIAMI GARDENS, FL — Fernando Mendoza delivered some late magic and No. 1 seed Indiana held on to beat No. 10 Miami, 27-21, in the College Football Playoff championship game to claim the first title in program history.

The win completes a stunning turnaround orchestrated by second-year coach Curt Cignetti, who inherited what is historically one of the weakest programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision but quickly transformed the Hoosiers into the best team the sport has to offer.

A surprisingly low-scoring game through the first half began to open up in the third quarter and then took on a frenzied pace in a final quarter that saw Mendoza put the finishing touches on the most memorable individual season in program history by providing clutch plays on two Indiana scoring drives.

Buy IU championship books, newspapers, gear

Mendoza finished 16 of 27 for 186 yards and ran for a touchdown. Kaelon Black ran for 79 yards on 17 carries and Roman Hemby added 60 yards on 19 carries. Omar Cooper led IU with 71 yards on five receptions and Charlie Becker added 65 yards, including multiple driving-extending catches in the fourth quarter.

Miami quarterback Carson Beck threw for 232 yards on 19 of 32 passing with a touchdown and an interception. Mark Fletcher Jr. had 112 yards on 17 carries and freshman receiver Malachi Toney had a game-high 10 catches for 122 yards and a score.

The teams exchanged punts on the game’s first three possessions. Indiana opened scoring on a 34-yard field goal by Nicolas Radicic with 2:42 left in the first quarter. That capped an 11-play, roughly six-minute drive featuring a key 25-yard completion to Cooper after a holding penalty left IU facing first-and-20 inside its own red zone.

After the teams combined for three consecutive three-and-out drives, the Hoosiers stirred to life and took a 10-0 lead with 6:13 remaining in the half on a 1-yard plunge by tight end Riley Nowakowski. Capping an 85-yard march, the score was set up by a 15-yard completion to Becker that was originally called a touchdown but brought back to the 5-yard line on an official review.

At this point, Miami’s offense had gained only 26 yards, 9 coming on Fletcher’s carry on the first play from scrimmage, and just a single first down.

Combined with the Hoosiers’ growing lead, this rough start led Miami to attempt and convert a fourth-and-1 play at its 34-yard line on a short Fletcher run. But after a 25-yard grab by receiver CJ Daniels pushed the Hurricanes into IU territory, coach Mario Cristobal opted for a long field goal attempt on fourth-and-2 from the 32.

Kicker Carter Davis’s 49-yard attempt with 33 seconds left in the half had the distance but drifted right and clanged off the goalpost to send the Hoosiers into the break ahead 10-0. IU went into the locker room with a 100-yard edge in total offense (169-69) and 11 first downs to Miami’s three. The Hurricanes were 0 of 6 on third down.

But the momentum built during that drive carried over into the third quarter. After sacking Mendoza twice and forcing an IU punt, Miami scored on its second play of the half via a 57-yard run by Fletcher, who waited patiently for a seam to open on the right side before going untouched into the end zone to make it 10-7 less than four minutes into the half.

That was the sixth run of at least 50 yards given up by the Hoosiers’ defense this season, more than all but five teams in the FBS.

Two drives later, following another IU punt, Miami was stopped short on a third-and-8 completion to Toney and lined up to punt back to the Hoosiers at its 16-yard line with 5:04 left in the third quarter.

Miami’s special teams were again an issue: IU’s Mikail Kamara blocked Dylan Joyce’s punt, which bounced into the end zone and was recovered by Isaiah Jones to put the Hoosiers back up by double digits at 17-7.

That was the first blocked punt for a score in College Football Playoff history.

The Hurricanes remained composed and provided a response. Starting at its 19 with five minutes to go in the third quarter, Miami went 81 yards in 10 plays, ending with Fletcher’s second touchdown run from 3 yards out, and drew within a field goal at 17-14 with 14:57 to play.

Miami had dominated the third quarter and put the Hoosiers on their heels. After that score, the Hurricanes were ahead in total offense with 222 yards to IU’s 180; the defense held Mendoza without a completion in the quarter.

But the fourth quarter would belong to the Hoosiers.

IU would have a major answer behind a rejuvenated Mendoza. He threw for 37 yards on the next drive, including a key 19-yard completion to Becker on fourth-and-5 from the Miami 37, and then ran it in from 12 yards out on fourth-and-4 from the 12 to put Indiana ahead 24-14 with 9:18 left.

Yet Miami would not go away thanks to more open-field brilliance from Toney. The Hurricanes needed just 2:34 to go 91 yards and make it 24-21 via Toney’s weaving 22-yard touchdown on a short completion from Beck. The former Georgia transfer found Toney for a 41-yard two plays earlier to drive deep into IU territory.

With 6:37 left, the Hoosiers took over at their 25 with a chance to put Miami in a serious bind with another score. Again, Mendoza stepped up to deliver one final blockbuster sequence.

He hit Cooper for 14 yards on a third-and-5 from IU’s 31. He then found Becker for 19 yards on third-and-7 from the 48 to get the Hoosiers across midfield. After Hemby went around the right end for 10 yards on the following play, the Hoosiers were set up at the Miami 23 at the two-minute timeout.

Hemby then ran for 9 yards and Miami called its first timeout. IU followed that with a key false start to make it second-and-6 from the 19 with 1:56 to play. The Hoosiers gained a yard on the next runs, both of which were followed by Miami timeouts, to make it fourth-and-4 from the 18.

Radicic made the 35-yard field goal to grow the lead to 27-21 with 1:42 left, but Miami was left in position to win the game with a touchdown.

The Hurricanes committed a false start on the first play. Beck was hit and threw incomplete on first-and-15. Next, Beck again missed his target but the Hoosiers were flagged for a late hit, giving Miami a first down at its 35-yard line.

A 7-yard gain from Beck to Toney with 51 seconds left moved the Hurricanes into IU territory at the 47. On the next snap, Beck arced a throw down the left sideline toward Keelan Marion. But Marion wasn’t looking for the ball; defensive back Jamari Sharpe undercut Marion and intercepted at the Hoosiers’ 7-yard line to seal the win.

Before going 11-2 and losing in the opening round of last year’s playoff, IU had never won more than nine games in a season. The 2025 team is the first national champion since Yale in 1894 to finish 16-0. In their final four games, the Hoosiers beat teams then ranked No. 1, No. 5, No. 10 and No. 11 in the US LBM Coaches Poll.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY