Across the current title board, Alabama is the only contender whose best price sits below the model's fair value: 2c against a 2.5% mark. That half-point gap is small in absolute terms, but it is the sole instance of a contract trading under fair value, which makes Alabama the cleanest underpriced read on the make-the-playoff picture.
The rest of the board tells a familiar story. Nearly every contract prices a shade above fair value, the residue of venue margin, so the search for value is really a search for the tightest premiums rather than outright discounts.
Which contract is actually underpriced?
Alabama is the answer that survives scrutiny. At 2c on Polymarket versus a 2.5% fair value, the price implies slightly worse odds than the model assigns, the definition of an underpriced contract. No other name on the board clears that bar.
The next tier is priced near flat. Texas A&M trades at 3c against a 2.9% fair value, and Georgia sits at 10c against 9.7%, both within a fraction of a point of the model. Those are not discounts, but they are the low-friction entries: contenders where the market and the model broadly agree and the premium paid to enter is minimal.
Make-the-playoff exposure is not quoted directly on this board, so title prices serve as the contention proxy. A title contract only resolves yes deep in the bracket, which means its price already encodes a market read on playoff strength.
How to read title prices as a playoff signal
The method is straightforward: take the model's de-vigged fair value, compare it to the cheapest posted price, and rank contenders by the size of the premium. A small or negative premium marks relative value; a wide one marks a contract the market is charging up for.
Fair value itself sorts the field into tiers. Ohio State leads at 11.2%, followed by Notre Dame at 10.8% and Oregon at 10.4%. Texas and Georgia share the 9.7% line, Indiana sits at 7.7%, and Miami rounds the upper group at 6.9%.
Where the tightest gaps sit
Ranking by premium reshuffles the order. Alabama leads on relative value at 2c under a 2.5% fair value, then Texas A&M at 3c over 2.9% and Georgia at 10c over 9.7%. Oregon is the most reasonable of the top tier, 11c against a 10.4% fair value, cheapest on Kalshi.
The favorites carry modest tolls. Ohio State at 12c against 11.2% and Oregon at 11c against 10.4% are priced close to the model, so the entry cost for the highest-probability contenders stays contained.
Best prices split by venue. Ohio State, Oregon and Georgia are cheapest on Kalshi, while Alabama, Texas A&M and LSU are cheapest on Polymarket, so the cheapest route to each contender is not uniform.
Where price runs over fair value
The widest premiums flag the contracts the market charges up for. Texas prices at 11c against a 9.7% fair value, Indiana at 9c against 7.7%, and Notre Dame at 12c against 10.8%. Each pays a full point or more over the model, the opposite of the Alabama read.
Miami extends the pattern at 8c against a 6.9% fair value. None of these are outright fades on this data alone, but they are the contracts where the model sees the least relative value among the upper tiers.
The takeaway for a make-the-playoff lens: the market is paying up for the mid-board contenders it likes and leaving the thinnest edge exactly where enthusiasm runs highest.
Reading the board with discipline
Fair value and best price both move as liquidity and news arrive, and the model can be wrong; a half-point gap on Alabama is an edge on paper, not a certainty. Small premiums also sit within the margin of a two-source de-vig, so the sizing of any read should match the size of the gap.
For traders comparing venues, the Alabama and Texas A&M prices live on Polymarket (promo TGSWC), while the Kalshi book (promo FADE) holds the cheapest lines on Ohio State, Oregon and Georgia. Checking both before entering a contract is the whole point of a consensus board.
None of this is financial advice. The board is a snapshot as of late July 2026, and the relative-value order will shift the moment prices do.
