The clearest win-total value read available in the live data comes off the national-title board, and it points one way: every contract on it trades above the model's fair value. That makes the mispricing question one of degree. Alabama sits tightest to its number at a 4c best price against 3.8% fair, while Ole Miss carries the fattest proportional overlay at 5c against 3.3% fair.
The model builds a de-vigged consensus fair value across Kalshi and Polymarket, then compares it to the cheapest contract at any venue. When the gap between that best price and the fair value stays thin, the market is pricing the team close to the model. When it widens, price is running hot over the number.
Which teams trade closest to the model's number?
Alabama is the sharpest contract on the board. Its 4c best price on Polymarket sits just above the model's 3.8% fair value, leaving almost no overlay to fade or chase. For a team this far down the title ladder, that tight fit is unusual.
Ohio State is the other side of the same coin at the top of the board: a 13c best price on Kalshi against a 12.1% fair value. Notre Dame (14c on Polymarket, 12.4% fair) and Indiana (8c on Kalshi, 7.4% fair) also price within a point of their model numbers.
These are the contracts where the market and the model broadly agree. Value, by definition, is thin here; the price is doing its job.
Where does price run hottest over fair value?
The overlay widens lower on the board. Ole Miss trades 5c on Kalshi against a 3.3% fair value, the richest proportional markup in the data. On a larger base, Georgia shows the biggest absolute gap: a 21c best price on Polymarket against 18.1% fair, nearly three points of overlay. Miami fills the middle at 16c on Kalshi against 14.2% fair.
That pattern, fatter spreads on the favorites and the thinnest longshots, is where the model reads the market as pricing hottest over its number. It does not guarantee the model is right, but it flags where price and fair value diverge most.
What does the overlay say about win-total value?
The title board is a proxy, not a win-total line, so the read is directional. Teams whose title price runs well above model fair tend to be the same programs the market is paying up for across adjacent markets, including season win totals. The overlay is the model's signal that enthusiasm has outrun the rating.
Conversely, the tight contracts, Alabama and Ohio State, are where the market has already converged on the model. Those are the names least likely to offer a win-total edge in either direction, because the price is already close to the fair number.
The honest caveat: the model's fair value is an estimate built from power ratings, and ratings can be stale or wrong. The overlay describes a gap in prices, not a certainty about outcomes.
Reading the board: fair value and best price
The two charts below frame the read. The first ranks the model's fair value across the title board; the second shows the cheapest contract per team in cents, which is where the overlay lives relative to those fair numbers.
Venue matters for execution. Georgia, Notre Dame, Texas and Alabama price cheapest on Polymarket, while Miami, Ohio State, Indiana, LSU and Ole Miss price cheapest on Kalshi. Traders comparing venues can weigh the standing promos, Polymarket's TGSWC and Kalshi's FADE, against the contract they want.
None of this is advice. Prices move on liquidity and news, and both the model and the market can misprice an outcome; the figures here describe the board as of the latest snapshot.
Cheapest contract per team
Measured in cents, the best price per team shows where the market sets the entry point. Reading these against the fair-value chart above is the whole exercise: the wider the cents price sits over the model percentage, the hotter the overlay.
Alabama's 4c and Ole Miss's 5c anchor the bottom, but they tell different stories: Alabama is tight to its 3.8% number, while Ole Miss's 5c sits well over its 3.3% fair. At the top, Georgia's 21c carries the most to chase down.
