Among playoff-tier contenders, the contracts trading closest to model fair value are Alabama, Indiana and Oregon, and Alabama is the standout: its best price of 2c on Polymarket sits under the model's 2.4% fair value. That makes Alabama the only listed contender priced below where the model puts it, with Indiana (9c versus 8.3%) and Oregon (11c versus 10.2%) carrying the next-thinnest premiums.
The read here is not about who tops the board. It is about where price sits relative to the model's fair value, because that gap is what a trader actually pays.
How to spot an underpriced playoff contender
Every best price on the board is a probability in disguise: 11c means the market implies roughly an 11% chance. The model produces its own de-vigged fair value for each team. The distance between the two is the premium, and the smaller that premium, the cheaper the exposure.
Because prediction markets embed vig in the spread, most contracts price a fraction above fair value. So an underpriced contender is rarely one selling at a discount; it is one where the market is charging almost nothing over the model line. When a price dips under fair value, as Alabama's does, the signal is sharper.
This lens matters more in the playoff conversation than at the very top of the board, where the field is crowded and small edges compound across a longer path.
Which contenders trade closest to fair value
Alabama leads on this measure. A 2c best price on Polymarket against a 2.4% fair value is a rare case of the market pricing a team under the model. Oklahoma sits right on its line at 2c versus 2%, and Texas A&M is a hair over at 3c versus 2.8%.
Up the board, Indiana is the tightest of the genuine contenders: 9c on Kalshi against 8.3% fair value, a premium of well under a point. Oregon is close behind at 11c on Kalshi versus 10.2%. Georgia (10c versus 9%) and LSU (6c versus 5%) round out the group where the market take stays modest.
The chart below shows model fair value across this contender tier; pair it with the best price to see how thin each premium runs.
Where the premium is steepest
At the top, the market charges more. Ohio State and Notre Dame both carry an 11.3% fair value and a 13c best price on Kalshi, a premium near 1.7 points. Texas shows the widest gap of the upper tier: 11c best price on Polymarket against a 9.5% fair value, roughly a point and a half of markup.
Miami sits in a similar spot lower down, 8c on Polymarket versus 6.7% fair value. None of these are mispriced against the model in the team's favor; they simply cost more to own than the tighter names.
The best-price chart makes the venue split clear: Kalshi holds the line on Oregon, Georgia and Indiana, while Polymarket posts the low on Miami, LSU and Alabama.
Reading playoff equity off the title board
One caveat frames all of this: the figures here are national-title fair values, not standalone make-the-playoff prices. Title equity is a clean proxy for playoff positioning, since a team cannot win the title without reaching the field, but the two numbers are not the same. A contender with soft title odds can still be a strong bet to make the bracket.
That gap is exactly why the low-premium names reward attention. Alabama at 2c, Indiana at 9c and Oregon at 11c give the model's implied path to the field with minimal markup, and finding the cheapest venue matters when the edge is a fraction of a cent. Kalshi's FADE offer (trade $25, get up to $500) and Polymarket's TGSWC (deposit $20, get a $50 trading bonus) can offset some of that friction.
Prices and the model can both be wrong, and none of this is advice. The framework is simple: track the premium over fair value, take the cheapest venue, and lean toward the contenders the market is charging the least to own.
