SMU Topples Pitt After a 38-36 Set: A Win Built on the Block, Not on a Star

The third set ran to 38-36. In NCAA women's volleyball, a set that reaches 38 points always leaves a scar: it is the moment both teams cross the ordinary limits of stamina and enter a pure contest of nerve. I rewatched the footage of that set three times, and what made me pause was not any decisive spike, but the silence between two dead balls — the moment both sides knew they were standing at the edge of a cliff. In the stands of the Petersen Events Center, Pittsburgh's 58-match home winning streak was being eroded one point at a time, and no cheer could stop it. SMU beat Pitt 3-1. That is the result. But how they won is the real story, and it sits in a detail the scoreboard tends to hide: the block. When the match ended, SMU had 12.5 blocking points to Pitt's 6. That is no small margin, and at the highest level of volleyball, it is usually the sign of a battle decided long before the final whistle. I was not in Pittsburgh. I watched this match from Chiang Mai, on a screen, with a notebook beside me — a habit I have kept for nearly a decade in this profession. The more I watched, the more I believed that what happened at the Petersen Events Center was not a momentary shock, but the result of a process prepared months in advance. Pittsburgh entered this match as the No. 2 team in the nation, unbeaten in the early season, and holding one of the most impressive home records in program history: 58 consecutive home wins. That number is not just a statistic; it is a belief built over generations of players, a sense of invincibility that any opponent must confront before even touching the ball. Across the net stood SMU — ranked No. 6, but a team rising at astonishing speed. SMU joined the ACC in 2026, and since then it has ceased to be a harmless name. Four wins over top-10 opponents this season — against No. 3, No. 8, No. 9, and now No. 2 — say one thing: this is no passing phenomenon. On top of that, SMU holds a 14-match ACC winning streak, the longest active in the conference. In conference standings, the result shifted the picture directly: SMU improved to 5-0 in the ACC, while Pitt fell to 4-1. But the greater impact lies in the NCAA Tournament resume — where a road win over the No. 2 team is worth as much as several ordinary wins combined. The first thing I want to address is SMU's attacking structure. When the match ended, five SMU players had reached 10 or more kills: Natalia Newsome (17), Suli Davis (17), Jadyn Livings (13), Placide (10), and Favor Anyanwu (10). Five attackers crossing double digits is uncommon, and it carries deep tactical meaning. When a team can distribute the ball to five different destinations, the opposing block is left unable to predict. You cannot commit two or three blockers to one attacker, because the other attacker will punish you immediately. That is the hardest kind of attack to read — and in my experience watching matches, teams with such a distributed structure tend to sustain their form across a whole season, rather than rising and falling with a single individual. But the real highlight is in the middle. SMU's two middle blockers — led by Newsome — finished the match with a combined 27 kills on 47 swings, an efficiency of .447. Newsome alone hit .519, a figure that ranks as excellent for any middle blocker in a four-set match. To me, this is the sign of a smooth setter-to-middle connection, and that connection only forms when the first-pass system is solid enough. This is what a bare stat sheet does not show you: for a middle to hit .447, the team must control the ball consistently. Without a good first contact, the setter cannot feed the middle, and the entire attacking structure collapses to the two wings — where the opposing block is already waiting. SMU's middle efficiency that night is indirect evidence that their passing system performed far better than the raw numbers can express. On the other side of the net, the story was different. Olivia Babcock — Pitt's star, who holds the program record with 1,853 career kills and 176 career service aces — scored 25 kills in this match. That is an impressive individual number. But set against a team losing the block battle 12.5-6, a reliance on a single attacker becomes a tactical weakness that can be exploited. An attacker carrying 25 kills in a four-set match typically accounts for roughly half of a team's total attacking output. When that ratio runs too high, the opposing block needs only to focus on one person. SMU did exactly that. They blocked well, they distributed the attack well, and they forced Pitt to keep going back to Babcock in difficult-ball situations — where efficiency certainly drops below the flashy 25-kill headline. I have always believed that a medal never tells the whole story of a competition day. The same holds for beautiful numbers. Babcock's 25 kills are a question mark, not a statement — they tell you she received the ball a great deal, not how efficiently Pitt attacked. Behind the attack, SMU libero Victoria Harris recorded 20 digs and 4 service aces. This is a dual performance that is often underrated: a libero who both defends well and serves effectively creates two layers of pressure on the opponent. Harris tied her career high in aces, and this was her second 20-dig match of the season. In addition, Favor Anyanwu scored 10 kills and 9 blocks — near a double-double, one more proof of SMU's strength at the net. Notably, this was not a one-off explosion: it was SMU's third consecutive match with at least 12 team blocks. Their block is systematic and repeatable, not a fluctuation of luck. This match also stands out for a scheduling factor rarely mentioned: it was the first meeting in a home-and-home pair played within just a few days. In the ACC, membership expansion has made teams meet twice a season more often, and that creates a special kind of pressure. SMU had just won on the road; the return match would be at their home. The travel advantage flipped, and both coaching staffs had only four days to adjust. On the rules side, NCAA volleyball uses 25-point sets, win-by-two, with no cap. That very rule produced the 38-36 set — a set that tests roster depth, calm in reception, and substitution management. In such long sets, the team with more bench options and better serving discipline usually holds the edge. And in that extended set, it was the point-by-point execution at the crucial moments that decided the outcome, not one side collapsing. There is one reading of this match I want to push back on. Many will look at the third set at 38-36 and conclude that Pitt lost it through psychology, through weak nerve, or through a moment of lost focus. I do not think so. A set stretching to 38-36 is evidence of a side-out war at the highest level. Both teams maintained the ability to score on serve over a long stretch. When they reached the 30-point zone, both were outside their comfort zone; what remained was pure nerve. That is not where a team collapses — it is where a team must win through the smallest of plays. And this is what I consider the core of the story: Pitt's problem was not in the third set, but in their attacking structure throughout the match. The 58-match home streak may have created a psychological comfort zone. When you win that much, you are rarely pushed into a situation of facing prolonged adversity. That is a gap in competitive conditioning — not a gap in talent. Pitt head coach Dan Fisher said afterward that the team needed to experience those emotions. I read that line many times. It is a roster-management statement, not an excuse. Fisher is saying his team had been winning without ever being truly tested, and this loss is a necessary part of the growth process. Babcock herself said the team had not yet met a high standard in matches. This is a self-aware statement, and it shows Pitt's internal culture of accountability remains intact. If you want to find a sign that this team will come back strong, this is it — not the numbers on the stat sheet, but the way they talk about defeat. Between two waves of cheering, I heard something called the loneliness of achievement. When a team is unbeaten, it often does not know where it is weak — because no one is strong enough to point it out. Pitt lived in that state for months. SMU, the rising team, had nothing to lose, and so they played with a freedom the host did not have. This result sits within a broader context of NCAA women's volleyball. Nebraska — the No. 1 team — is now the only remaining unbeaten team in the country. That concentrates all the pressure of the unbeaten target on a single program. Meanwhile, a No. 2 losing to a No. 6 shows that the top of US collegiate women's volleyball is very crowded and upset-prone: top-heavy but volatile. For SMU, this is proof they are a genuine national contender, not a fleeting fairy tale. Four top-10 wins plus a 14-match conference streak form a resume of sustainability, not of one glorious night. Their roster structure also shows durability: Davis, a sophomore, scored 17 kills — meaning SMU has a young core with years of development ahead. One systemic point stands out: SMU only joined the ACC in 2026. Moving to a stronger conference typically raises a program's competitive ceiling, because a tougher schedule forces the team to improve faster. The result against Pitt may be a direct product of that process — an effect sports administrators call conference upgrade. On the commercial and broadcast side, the rematch between the two teams — scheduled for Sunday, October 11, 2026, on ESPN — is a signal. A college women's volleyball match being placed on national television shows the commercial value of compelling matchups at this level. The return match within four days turns the matchup into a rare instant-replay chess match: both coaching staffs will have to adjust almost immediately. This also matters at a deeper level: NCAA women's volleyball is the primary feeder for the US national team and the emerging professional leagues such as LOVB and PVF. Elite performances at the college level — by Babcock, Davis, or Newsome — help draw attention to these athletes as they step onto the professional stage. A match like this is not just a result; it is a link in the American volleyball talent supply chain. Looking back at the whole match, I see three layers of meaning overlapping. The first is the result: a winning streak ended. The second is the method: SMU won through blocking and distributed attacking, both systematic and repeatable factors. The third is the consequence: the ACC race and the NCAA Tournament resumes of both teams have changed. But there is one thing I still cannot assert. The data I have does not include SMU's overall hitting percentage, their error count, or their perfect-pass rate. So I cannot fully measure how clean this win was. I can only say that the block, the middle efficiency, and the even distribution are signs of a well-organized team. Whether they can sustain it in the rematch is a question only time will answer. For Pitt, this loss does not erase their standing. They remain one of the top programs in the country, still possess a talent of Babcock's caliber, and still have a coach who knows how to turn defeat into a lesson. What they need to do is diversify their attacking outlets, reduce dependence on one individual, and prepare for opponents who will block them better in the decisive matches. There are quiet stadiums that say more than a crowd. At the Petersen Events Center that night, the crowd was there, cheering, believing in the streak. But within that noise, SMU found the stillness needed to execute their plan. And perhaps, in their first loss after 58 matches, Pitt also found something that winning could not bring: a reason to look at themselves again. Every finish line is only a place to begin another question. The 58-match home streak is over, but the real question of this season — which team can go furthest when December arrives — still has no answer. And in volleyball, as in every sport, that answer is never written on the scoreboard in advance.