The 12.5–6 Block and the 38–36 Set: How SMU Ended Pitt's 58-Match Home Streak

The third set stretched to 38–36. No cheer broke out at the moment the point was settled — only the sound of the ball on the wooden floor and the sigh of an entire arena holding its breath. I sat in the press area, pen still in hand, and realized I had stopped taking notes for the last several minutes. A women's volleyball set that runs to 38–36 is not a spectacle to be admired; it is two teams torturing each other with precision. Every time one side scored, the other answered; every time it seemed over, someone saved the ball. And when SMU closed that set and went on to win the match 3–1, what was buried beneath the headline "Pitt loses its 58-match home streak" was the more important story: a team ranked No. 6 nationally had just proven it was no longer there to be a backdrop.

To understand why this match deserves more than a headline, it has to be placed in the proper frame of US collegiate women's volleyball — NCAA Division I. This is not an FIVB arena, there is no national team, no direct Olympic berth. But this is the cradle that produces almost the entire US women's volleyball talent pool, from which players rise to the emerging pro leagues LOVB and PVF, and then to the national team. When I watch matches at this level, I always remind myself that the scoreboard here speaks not about one evening — it speaks about how an entire development system is operating.

The context of the match sits at the top of the collegiate game. Pitt entered ranked No. 2 nationally with a 58-match home unbeaten streak — a number not built on luck, but on multiple seasons of correct recruiting, stable coaching, and a home culture that was nearly impossible to shake. SMU, ranked No. 6, came in as the visitor. Nebraska held No. 1 and was the only remaining unbeaten team after that night. The mere fact that a No. 2 fell to a No. 6 was enough for the media to call it an "upset." But that label, as I will argue later, is a lazy reading and somewhat unfair to the winner.

What set this match apart was the conference context. SMU entered at 5–0 in the ACC; Pitt at 4–1. This was not an experimental non-conference friendly; it was a match with direct weight on conference standings and on the NCAA Tournament résumé. In collegiate women's volleyball, where a place in the 64-team field is decided largely by résumé, a road win over the No. 2 team carries enormous accumulated value. It is not just three points in the standings; it is a bold line in the record that the selection committee will read in December.

And there is one scheduling detail I consider the pivot of the whole story: the rematch came just four days later, on Sunday, October 11, on ESPN. Collegiate women's volleyball rarely has a home-and-home pair this close within a single week. That turned the Wednesday match into the first half of a chess game, and the Sunday match into the second half — where both coaching staffs would have to reveal their adjustments almost immediately.

One technical point must be made so readers are not misled by a number. In NCAA statistics, blocks are counted under the "half-block" convention — meaning when two players combine on a block, each is credited half a point. So SMU's "12.5" is not a typo; it reflects exactly how American collegiate volleyball records net defense. When we compare 12.5 to 6, we are comparing two defensive philosophies, not merely two numbers.

Here is what I want to put on the table before going into detail: SMU won this match at the net, through distribution, and through an attack structure that is hard to scout. Those are three systemic, repeatable qualities — very different from a lucky night.

Let us start at the net. SMU dominated Pitt 12.5–6 in blocks. In volleyball, a block differential of nearly double usually signals a match in which one side fully controlled the rhythm at the net. But what makes this number more credible than a single stat is the context: it was SMU's third consecutive match with at least 12 team blocks. In other words, this was not a random spike in form; it was a net-defense system that had been established and was operating consistently across matches. For a journalist, the difference between "one good match" and "a trend" is the difference between rumor and fact.

Alongside the block was the middle-attack efficiency. SMU's middle blockers scored 27 kills on 47 swings, a .447 clip. In volleyball, .447 from a middle group in a four-set match is excellent — it means the middle balls were not only executed, but executed with almost unthinkable precision. Individually, Natalia Newsome posted 17 kills at .519, a career high. Jadyn Livings, an outside hitter, recorded 13 kills at .435 — also her season best.

Here I must pause to address how to read "career high" and "season best." These are peaks from a single match, not season averages. A careless analyst would take Newsome's .519 and declare her a top national middle. A fair analyst would say: on one specific evening, against one specific opponent, she reached her highest level. That distinction matters, because volleyball is a sport where a single match can be shaped by small variables — a bit of confidence, a bit of tempo, a bit of luck on tight points.

But what makes me believe in this win is not the individual peaks. It is the distribution. SMU had five players with 10 or more kills: Newsome 17, Suli Davis 17, Livings 13, Placide 10, and Favor Anyanwu 10. In volleyball, when a team has five attackers crossing the 10-point threshold, the opposing block loses track of where to commit. This is an attack structure that is hard to "load block" — hard to stack the block against one player. And in a match where the other side leaned heavily on one individual, the contrast becomes stark.

Now look at Pitt. Olivia Babcock scored 25 kills — an impressive number, and it lifted her career kill total to 1,853 and her 176th career ace, both program records. But 25 kills in a four-set match, when your team is losing the block battle 6–12.5, is a warning sign more than a highlight. Roughly half of a four-set team's attacking output rested on one person. In a match where the net was controlled by the opponent, that concentration turned from weapon into vulnerability.

I have watched many matches where one individual carries a team, and I always ask: when the opposing block reads that, who is the outlet? Pitt lacked a reliable secondary escape under pressure. That is what the stat sheet does not say outright, but it lives in the block ratio and the distribution of points.

Another technical highlight was at libero. Victoria Harris recorded 20 digs and 4 aces. This is an underrated dual contribution: back-row defense plus pressure from the service line. In modern volleyball, a libero who can both pass well and serve aces is a rare tactical asset. The 20 digs marked the second time this season Harris reached that mark, and the 4 aces tied her career high. Numbers like these are often overlooked because they never make headlines, but they are the foundation of a win.

One more name must be mentioned: Favor Anyanwu with 10 kills and 9 blocks — nearly a double-double, and dominant at the net. Together with Newsome, she formed a middle pair that made it impossible for Pitt to play easily through the center.

When everything is stitched together, the tactical picture becomes clear. SMU won because they played a balanced brand of volleyball, using the middle as their axis, and controlled the net. Pitt lost because they played a brand built on one individual's power, and when that individual was surrounded by an excellent block, they had no strong Plan B. SMU's win was not an upset — it was the logical outcome of a well-built team beating a team built around a star.

Interestingly, the people involved acknowledged this in their own way. Pitt head coach Dan Fisher said his team "needed to experience those emotions." To me, that is a management statement more than an excuse. It implies Pitt had been winning too much without being truly tested — that they had lived in the comfort zone of a 58-match home streak and had never been pushed into a situation requiring late-set endurance. That is a gap in psychological conditioning, not a gap in talent.

Babcock herself said her team "had not yet met a high standard in matches." A player holding program records, after scoring 25 kills, spoke about internal standards rather than about herself. For a journalist who has covered hundreds of press conferences, this is a sign of a healthy accountability culture — and it lowers the risk of internal fracture after a loss.

There is something I want to say plainly, even if it may discomfort some. Calling this win an "upset" is a mild insult to SMU. A team that has beaten four top-10 opponents — No. 3, No. 8, No. 9, and now No. 2 — is not a team that came to surprise anyone. They carry a 14-match ACC winning streak, the longest active in the conference. That signals sustained strength, not a flash of brilliance.

I once wrote that a forgotten contract often tells more truth than a celebrated one. It is the same here. What was celebrated was Pitt's 58-match home streak — a glamorous story. What was forgotten was SMU's 14-match ACC streak and their four top-10 wins — a less glamorous story that speaks more honestly about which team is rising. When a team builds sustainable strength in silence, the media tends to notice them only at the moment they topple a giant — and then stamps "upset" on it, as if years of work were compressed into one lucky night.

This is where I see the familiar structural injustice I have pursued throughout my career. US collegiate women's volleyball is one of the most fiercely competitive women's sports environments on the planet, with hundreds of young athletes training every day in arenas that sometimes hold only a few thousand spectators. Numbers like Harris's 20 digs, Anyanwu's 9 blocks, or Newsome's .519 clip never appear on national sports broadcasts. They are invisible. But it is precisely those invisible numbers that create the real competitive value of this sport.

I always wonder why a set like 38–36 can be more compelling than many matches covered with fanfare. The answer, I think, lies here: in volleyball, there is nowhere to hide. Every point counts. There is no clock to protect a lead, no sideways pass to kill time. Just six players on one side, six on the other, and a ball that must hit the floor. A set stretching to 38–36 is the purest possible contest of mental endurance.

And this is when I think of what I learned after years standing in the press area. I entered the arena through the side door, but I write about the match with all my heart. The side door is for those not invited onto the podium, for women journalists in an industry that still doubts their competence. But from that side door, I learned to see what those at the front door miss: a libero serving aces, a middle holding the rhythm, and an entire development system flowing behind a headline.

Now, the counterintuitive angle. The popular reading of this match is: "Pitt slipped" or "Pitt was exposed." I don't think so. Pitt remains an elite team; they were simply forced to face a type of opponent they had not met during their unbeaten run. Pitt's blind spot was not talent — it was structure. When you build a team around a star, you gain a very high individual ceiling, but you also create a single point of failure. A block good enough, patient enough to surround that point can neutralize an entire machine.

More counterintuitive still: this win may not be SMU's peak, but merely a milestone on the way up. When a team moves to a stronger conference — as SMU joined the ACC — it often endures a difficult adaptation period before benefiting from a tougher schedule. That SMU has already beaten four top-10 teams while still early in that process suggests their ceiling is even higher. This is not the story of a team that has reached its limit; it is the story of a team that has not yet touched it.

We should also speak about commercial value and competitive value — a theme I am always sensitive to. The rematch airs on ESPN, which says the organizers recognize the value of this matchup. But let me place two numbers side by side. On one hand, a collegiate women's volleyball match on national television. On the other, young athletes like Suli Davis — a sophomore with 17 kills, 9 digs, and 4 blocks — still competing in a system where most players have no professional contract and cover many costs themselves. I have spent my career checking how much a female athlete is paid and what her life outside the court looks like. The contrast between television lights and the financial reality behind them is what glamorous coverage often hides.

That is why I never write about a female player without asking about her conditions. Not to dramatize, but to show that her competitive value — like a 38–36 set — is often greater than the commercial value the system grants her. When a 19-year-old scores 17 kills against the No. 2 team in the country, she is creating a value no payroll can measure.

So what remains after this match? There are two scenarios for the Sunday rematch. If Pitt wins, the story will be "reset": the media will say the No. 2 team is back and the loss was an accident. If SMU wins again, the story will harden into a statement that the No. 6 team has officially entered the championship contender tier. Both scenarios show one thing: in collegiate women's volleyball, the gap between the top 2 and the top 6 is thinner than ever.

There is something I always remind myself when writing about nights like this. Volleyball, at its deepest level, is a collective ritual, not a game. When 78,000 people at Luzhniki did not cheer but breathed together, I understood what sacred means. A 38–36 set in a smaller collegiate arena may not have the same crowd scale, but it carries the same essence: a collective, synchronized to the point of pain, enduring a moment together.

And that moment does not belong to the scoreboard. It belongs to a libero standing in the back row, taking a breath, then serving her twentieth ball — quietly, invisibly, but the entire foundation of a win.

If you are looking for a lesson from this match, look for it there. Don't look for it in the "upset" headline. Look for it in how SMU built a team that depends on no one, and in how Pitt, though fallen, spoke of standards rather than of victimhood. US collegiate women's volleyball is entering a phase where depth matters more than stardom. Whoever understands that first will go far.

As for me, I will be in the press area on Sunday night, pen in hand, waiting for the second half of a chess game I believe will shape the rest of the season. And if a set stretches to 38–36 again, I promise I won't forget to take notes this time.