The model fades the national-title market hardest at the very top of the board. Texas, Oregon, Notre Dame and Miami all trade at 11c on Kalshi, yet the model's de-vigged fair value pins each at 8.5%. That is a 2.5-point premium on every one of the four co-favorites, the widest gap in the market right now.
The pattern is not a single mispriced team; it is a structural tax that scales with price. Every contract on the board sits above its fair value, and the further up the board a contract sits, the more premium the market charges to hold it.
Where does the model fade the market hardest?
The four 11c co-favorites are the clearest fade. At 11c the market implies roughly an 11% shot; the model's consensus fair value is 8.5%. The difference is the overround, and 2.5 points is the steepest reading on the board.
One rung down, Ohio State and Indiana each price at 9c against a 6.9% fair value, a 2.1-point premium apiece. Georgia follows at 7c versus 5.2% fair value, a 1.8-point gap. The premium falls as the price falls, but it never disappears, which is the point: the fade is systematic, not team-specific.
The takeaway is not that these teams are bad values in isolation. It is that the price of admission at the top of the board is highest exactly where liquidity and attention concentrate.
How big is the premium at each price point?
Charting fair value against best price shows the tax cleanly. The fair-value ladder descends in orderly steps while the price ladder sits consistently above it.
The top tier carries the heaviest load. Reading the two figures side by side, the 11c favorites give up 2.5 points to fair value, the 9c group gives up roughly 2, and the single-digit longshots give up close to 1.
Why won't the model separate the top four?
Texas, Oregon, Notre Dame and Miami land on an identical 8.5% fair value, which invites a fair question: does the model really see four indistinguishable teams? The flat tier reflects the resolution limit of a preseason title market, not a claim that these programs are clones.
At 8.5%, the spread between the fourth-best and first-best title contender is inside the model's margin of error. The market responds the same way, stacking them at a common 11c price. When contenders cluster this tightly, the honest output is a tie, and the tradable signal shifts from picking between them to noting that all four carry the same premium.
Where is the fade smallest?
Down the board, the overround compresses. Oklahoma and Ole Miss each price at 3c against a 2% fair value, a premium near 1 point. Texas A&M sits at 4c versus 2.8%, and LSU at 6c versus 4.4%, both cleaner than the top tier in absolute terms.
That does not make the longshots free. On a percentage basis the tax on a 3c contract is still meaningful, and title longshots resolve to zero far more often than they pay out. The point is narrower: the model's disagreement with the market, measured in points of probability, is smallest at the bottom of the board and largest at the top.
For anyone screening the board, the best prices listed here are Kalshi quotes as of July 11, 2026 (code FADE for new accounts). Prices and the model can both be wrong, and none of this is financial advice; it is a read on where the numbers diverge.
