The widest Heisman-relevant disagreement sits with Indiana. Its national-title contracts trade at 9c on Kalshi while the model's fair value is 10.8%, the clearest case on the board where a Heisman-carrying team is priced below the model. When price trails fair value, the market is discounting the team's ceiling, and the Heisman case that rides on it comes along cheap.
Why title prices are the backbone of Heisman edges
The Heisman follows team success. A skill player's award path is inseparable from deep playoff runs, prime-time exposure and win totals, so a team's title probability is the strongest public signal for its top candidate. That makes the national-title board the cleanest read on where the model and the market diverge.
The method is simple. The model builds a de-vigged consensus fair value from Kalshi and Polymarket, then compares it to the best available contract price. A price under fair value is a discount; a price over it is a premium. The size of that gap is the edge.
No Heisman player prices are invented here. The disagreement is measured on the observable title market, where each contender's odds are quoted, and the Heisman read is inferred from it.
Where the model sees Heisman value: Indiana and Michigan
Indiana is the headline. At 9c against a 10.8% fair value, the contract prints roughly two points below the model, the largest discount among teams with a live Heisman candidate. The market treats Indiana as a fringe contender; the model files it alongside the top tier at 10.8%.
Michigan is the second discount. It trades at 2c versus a 3% fair value, a smaller absolute gap but a real one at the longer end of the board. Oklahoma sits close to fair, 2c against 2.2%, marginally cheap rather than a standout.
These are the names where price beats fair value. For a trader mapping Heisman exposure onto title contracts, the discounted team is where the model's disagreement pays.
Where the market prices Heisman cases rich
The favorites run the other way. Ohio State tops the board at 11% fair value but trades at 12c, and Notre Dame is 10.9% fair value against 12c on Polymarket. Both are premiums: the market pays up for the highest-profile Heisman platforms.
Oregon fits the pattern at 10% fair value versus 11c, and Miami (6.4% versus 7c) and LSU (4.9% versus 6c) also trade above model. Georgia (7.6% versus 8c) and Texas A&M (2.8% versus 3c) carry thinner premiums.
Texas is the rare clean print: 9c against a 9% fair value, price on top of model. Where the favorites are marked up, the model's disagreement points away, not toward.
Reading the board
The pattern is consistent: the market pays premiums on the marquee Heisman platforms and discounts a genuine contender in Indiana. That is the core of the model-versus-market gap, and it is why the biggest edge is not at the top of the board.
Prices and the model can both be wrong, and title probability is a proxy for a Heisman case, not a direct quote on it. This is prediction-market analysis, not advice. New entrants can weigh venue promos such as Kalshi's FADE (trade $25, get up to $500) or Polymarket's TGSWC (deposit $20, get a $50 trading bonus) when choosing where to route a contract.
The board will move as depth charts settle and win totals firm up. For now, the model's read is straightforward: fade the premium favorites, respect the Indiana discount.
Title fair value and price, by contender
The charts below use only the current national-title figures. The first ranks fair value across the top contenders; the second sets best price against the names carrying the widest model gaps.
Best contract price, edge names
Indiana's 9c prints below its 10.8% fair value, and Michigan's 2c below its 3%, while Ohio State and Notre Dame sit at 12c above model. Price in cents maps directly to implied probability.
