Miami is the model's clearest mispricing on the current college football board. Its national-title contract trades at 5c on Polymarket against a model fair value of 6.9%, a gap of nearly two points and the widest buy-side edge on offer. Georgia and Texas follow as smaller edges, while Oregon and Indiana are the contracts the market is overpaying for.
There is no clean, liquid win-total tape to quote here, so the read below leans on the title board, where the same fair-value engine meets the deepest order flow. When price sits under fair value, the model sees value; when price sits above, the model fades it.
Which CFB teams does the model think are underpriced?
The buy-side names share one trait: a best price at or below the model's fair value. Miami leads at 5c against 6.9%, roughly a 28% discount to fair. Georgia is next at 5c against a 5.5% fair value, and Texas prints 9c against 9.4%, both marginal but on the right side of the line.
Among longshots, Oklahoma's 2c price sits just under its 2.3% fair value, the cleanest read at the bottom of the board. All four best prices live on Polymarket, so the cheapest venue and the value venue are the same here. Traders sizing these contracts can note the Polymarket TGSWC code when comparing entry points.
None of these are large edges in isolation. The case is in the direction: four contenders priced at or below model, with Miami carrying enough of a gap to stand out from the noise.
Where is the market overpaying?
Two contenders trade above the model's number. Oregon prices at 11c against a 10.5% fair value, and Indiana at 9c against 8.3%, a roughly seven-tenths-of-a-point premium on a mid-board name. The model reads both as slightly rich rather than badly wrong.
At the top, Notre Dame anchors the board at a 12.9% fair value with a best price of 13c on Kalshi, essentially at model. Ohio State is dead-on at 11c against 11%. Those are the reference points: fairly priced favorites framing the edges around them.
Fair value versus price on the model's edges
The chart below sets each contract's model fair value against its best available price. Where the blue fair value clears the price, the model sees value; where the price clears fair value, it does not.
Miami is the only name where the fair value stands meaningfully above the price. Georgia, Texas and Oklahoma are within a fraction of a point, and Oregon and Indiana invert, with price sitting on top.
How to read these edges
The gaps here are small, and small gaps are the point. A two-point discount on Miami or a half-point premium on Indiana is the kind of mispricing that shows up in a de-vigged consensus and disappears in a single news cycle. Fair value is a moving estimate, not a settled truth.
The disciplined read: Miami is the standout value, Georgia and Texas are lean buys at model, and Oregon and Indiana are the names to fade if forced to pick a side. Prices and the model can both be wrong, and none of this is financial advice.
