Miami is the most underpriced contender on the CFB title board. Its best price sits at 5c on Polymarket while the model's fair value is 6.9%, the widest gap between cheapest price and modeled probability among teams in the contender tier. Georgia shows the same pattern to a smaller degree, at 5c against a 5.6% fair value.
The title board is not a dedicated make-the-field market, but it is the cleanest public read on playoff-caliber teams: a contract's title probability compounds the odds of reaching the field and winning through it. Where best price trails fair value, the market is charging less than the model's estimate.
Which playoff contender is most underpriced?
Miami. The model's fair value is 6.9%, yet the cheapest contract clears at 5c on Polymarket. Read as probability, a trader pays for roughly a 5% outcome that the model scores near 7%. That is the largest discount to fair value on the board among teams the model still treats as live contenders.
Georgia is the second name. Its 5c best price sits below a 5.6% fair value, a narrower edge than Miami but the same direction. Both teams price beneath their modeled probability, which is the definition the desk uses for underpriced rather than any narrative about resume or ranking.
Where best price trails fair value
The value tier runs from Indiana at the top of this group down through Oklahoma. Indiana carries the highest fair value of the set at 8.3%, but its 8c best price matches that number almost exactly, so it is priced in line rather than cheap. The discounts show up lower, at Miami and Georgia.
The chart below plots model fair value across the contender tier. It sets the reference points; the best-price comparison is where the edges appear, with Miami's 5c against 6.9% the clearest example.
LSU and the premium side of the board
Not every contender is a discount. LSU shares Georgia's 5.6% fair value but its cheapest contract clears at 6c, above the modeled number. That is a small premium: the price implies more than the model estimates, the opposite of the Miami and Georgia setups.
The distinction matters because fair value alone does not identify value. LSU and Georgia are modeled identically at 5.6%, yet one trades at a discount and the other at a premium purely on where best price lands. The chart below shows the cheapest available price for the four names in the middle of the board.
Texas A&M and Oklahoma round out the group near fair value, at 3c against 3.2% and 2c against 2.3% respectively, offering little gap in either direction.
How to read the value tier
The method is narrow: compare the model's fair value with the cheapest venue price for the same contract, and flag names where price sits below the model. On the current board that surfaces Miami and Georgia, with LSU as the cautionary premium. All best prices in this set currently route through Polymarket, where the code TGSWC applies.
Two caveats hold. The gaps are single-digit cents, so execution and liquidity determine whether a modeled edge survives contact with the book. And the model can be wrong: fair value is an estimate, not a settled probability, and the title board is a proxy for playoff standing rather than a direct market on it. Nothing here is financial advice.
