USC and Oklahoma are the only college football title contracts trading at or below the model's fair value, and that is where win-total value screens cheapest. USC's best price of 2c on Kalshi sits under a 2.3% fair value, and Oklahoma's 2c on Polymarket sits under 2.1%. Every other team on the board trades at a premium to the model's line.
That gap between de-vigged fair value and the best available price is the model's mispricing signal. When price falls below fair value, the contract is cheap relative to the model's read of a team's full-season strength; when it sits above, the market is charging a markup.
Which CFB teams does the model call mispriced?
The screen is narrow by design. Across the current board, only two contracts clear the bar of trading at or under fair value. USC prices at 2c against a 2.3% fair value, the clearest underpricing on offer. Oklahoma prices at 2c against 2.1%, marginally below the model's line.
Both are deep-tail contracts, and that is the point: value concentrates where liquidity thins and the market rounds prices down to the nearest cent. Alabama and Miami sit closest to fair among the mid-board names, at 3c versus 2.6% and 8c versus 7.5% respectively, but both still carry a small premium rather than a discount.
The read is a relative-value one, not a forecast of outcomes. A 2c contract is still a longshot; the model simply says the price undersells the team's season-long equity.
Where the market charges the biggest premium
At the top of the board, price runs ahead of the model. Notre Dame is the widest gap: a 13c best price on Polymarket against 10.7% fair value, roughly 2.3 points of markup. Ohio State follows at 13c on Kalshi versus 11% fair value, two points rich.
Texas (11c versus 9.2%) and Georgia (10c versus 8.3%) round out the group trading meaningfully over the model's line. Oregon is the tightest of the favorites at 12c against 11.1% fair value, but even the model's top-rated team offers no discount at the current price.
For a win-total lens, that top-heavy premium matters: the contracts the market is most confident in are exactly the ones where the model sees the least edge.
How the model reads mispricing
Fair value is a de-vigged consensus built across Kalshi and Polymarket, with the raw prices stripped of their overround so the numbers read as clean probabilities. The best price is the cheapest contract available at either venue. The distance between the two is the model's edge, positive when price beats fair value and negative when it lags.
Ranked by that distance, USC (price about 0.3 points under fair) and Oklahoma (about 0.1 under) are the only contracts on the value side of the line. Notre Dame and Ohio State sit furthest on the expensive side. Everything else falls in between, paying some fraction of a point in premium.
Venue selection compounds the effect. USC's edge only exists at Kalshi's 2c; Oklahoma's only at Polymarket's 2c. Traders comparing venues can use Kalshi code FADE or Polymarket code TGSWC when setting up, but the pricing read stands on its own regardless of promo.
The value screen, ranked
Summarized, the board splits cleanly. Value: USC and Oklahoma, the two contracts at or below fair value. Fair-ish: Alabama and Miami, carrying only a fraction of a point of premium. Rich: Notre Dame, Ohio State, Texas and Georgia, each trading two points or more over the model's line.
The takeaway for win-total positioning is that the model's edges are small and sit almost entirely in the tail. Prices and the model can both be wrong, and none of this is financial advice; it is a read on where the traded number diverges most from the model's fair value on the title board as of the current snapshot.
