The biggest disagreement between the model and the market does not sit on the favorites; it sits on the longshots. On the Kalshi title board, Ole Miss, Oklahoma and Texas Tech each trade at 3c against a model fair value of 2%, a markup near 50%. The favorites are priced far tighter: Miami trades at 13c against a 9.8% fair value, a markup closer to 33%.
Heisman contracts are not broken out separately in this dataset, so the cleanest read-through to Heisman value runs through title equity. The quarterback-carrying programs the model rates highest to win it all are the same names that anchor any Heisman board, which makes the title market the most honest proxy on offer.
How the model defines a Heisman edge
An edge is the gap between what a contract costs and what the model thinks it is worth. The market price carries vig, the built-in margin that pushes raw prices above true probability. The model strips that margin to produce a de-vigged fair value, then compares it to the cheapest available contract.
On the current board, every traded price sits above its fair value, which is expected once vig is included. The useful signal is not the direction of the gap but its size relative to the contract. A team priced close to its fair value is paying a thin tax to enter; a team priced well above it is paying a fat one.
Where the market overpays: the longshot markup
The markup widens steadily down the board. LSU at 6c against a 4.3% fair value runs near a 40% premium. Texas A&M at 4c against 2.8% sits above 40%. The 3c cluster of Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Ole Miss, each against a 2% fair value, tops the list at roughly 50%.
This is a structural feature of one-cent pricing, not a verdict on any single program. Low-probability contracts cannot be quoted finely enough to track fair value closely, so the relative tax rises as the number falls. For a Heisman read-through, it means dart-throw names carry the steepest entry cost relative to their modeled chance.
The favorites carry the cleanest pricing
At the top of the board, price and fair value sit closest together. Miami's 13c against 9.8% is the tightest markup on offer. Texas, Oregon and Notre Dame each trade at 11c against an identical 8.3% fair value, and Ohio State and Indiana share 9c against 6.7%.
For Heisman purposes, that matters because these are the rosters most likely to produce a frontrunner. The model's clearest title-equity reads, Miami at the front with the Big Ten trio of Texas, Oregon and Ohio State behind it, are also the contracts where the market is asking the smallest premium over fair value. Promo access such as Kalshi FADE does not change the underlying math, only the cost of entry.
What this means for Heisman positioning
The title board sends a consistent message: the model and the market disagree least where probability is highest, and most where it is lowest. Anyone reading Heisman value off these contracts should weight the QB-carrying contenders the model rates near the top, where the markup is thin, over the longshot cluster, where the premium balloons.
Georgia at 7c against 5.1% and LSU at 6c against 4.3% sit in the middle band, priced reasonably but without the tight markup of the leaders. The model can be wrong and prices move on news and liquidity, so none of this is advice. It is a map of where the disagreement is widest, and on this board that disagreement lives at the bottom of the table, not the top.
