The widest model-versus-market disagreements on the Heisman-relevant title board sit at the longshot end. Utah and Ole Miss trade at the steepest premiums over the model's fair value, while Florida is the only program whose best price (1c) sits below fair (1.1%). Among true contenders, Georgia shows the biggest absolute gap: 17c on Polymarket against a 15.6% fair value.
The pattern is consistent with how award markets behave. Price agreement is tight at the top of the board and loosens as probability falls, which pushes the real disagreement into the low-single-cent tier.
Why the title board is the cleanest Heisman proxy
The Heisman almost always goes to a quarterback or skill player on a playoff-level team, so program title equity is the most reliable public read on Heisman edge at the program level. The figures here are national-title fair values and best venue prices; the model treats them as the backbone of program-level award pricing because the two markets track contender status closely.
That means the Heisman question reduces to a familiar one: where does the model's fair value diverge from the cheapest price on offer? The larger the gap, the sharper the disagreement, whether the market is running rich over fair or trailing beneath it.
Where do the model and market disagree most?
At the top, the board is efficient. Georgia prices 17c against a 15.6% fair value, Miami 15c against 13.7%, and Texas 7c against a 6% fair value. These are premiums of roughly one cent, the market's standard vig rather than a genuine mispricing.
The disagreement widens in relative terms as the fair value shrinks. Utah's 2c best price on Kalshi sits near an 80% premium over its 1.1% fair value, and Ole Miss at 3c on Kalshi runs well over its 1.9% fair value. In absolute cents the gaps are small, but as a fraction of the model's number they are the largest on the board.
The takeaway: the market and model broadly agree on the shape of the race, and the loudest disagreements are concentrated in the names the model rates as the longest shots.
Florida: the only program the market undercuts
Florida is the single exception to the rule that price runs over fair. The best price of 1c on Polymarket sits just below the model's 1.1% fair value, making it the only program on the board trading cheap to the model rather than rich.
The caveat matters: at a one-cent price the gap is a rounding-error edge on a low-probability outcome, not a signal of a live Heisman threat. It is a data point about market structure more than a trade thesis. Prices and the model can both be wrong, and thin longshot contracts move on little volume.
How to read the disagreement
The efficient core of the board leaves little to work with. Ohio State and Notre Dame both price 13c on Kalshi against identical 12.6% fair values, and Alabama's 5c lines up against a 4.9% fair value. When price and model sit on top of each other, there is no edge to exploit in either direction.
Where disagreement exists, it clusters in the value tier, and it almost always favors the market, not the trader: longshots trade rich. For reference, contract pricing differs by venue, and the cheapest route changes team to team (Polymarket for Georgia, Miami and Florida via code TGSWC; Kalshi for Ohio State, Notre Dame, Ole Miss and Utah via code FADE).
None of this is financial advice. It is a map of where the model and the market diverge, and the clearest reading is that the real Heisman disagreement lives in the cents, not the contenders.
Fair value across the contender tier
The model's title fair values anchor the Heisman read. The board tightens quickly below the top four, which is why disagreement migrates to the longshot tier rather than the favorites.
Best price in the value tier
The low-probability names carry the richest premiums as a share of fair value. These are the best prices on offer across venues; the gap to each team's fair value is where the model and market part ways.
