SMU Beats Pitt in Four Sets: A 58-Match Home Streak Falls and the Power Map of NCAA Women's Volleyball Shifts

By the third set, the scoreboard was no longer displaying the score in any ordinary way. The number 38-36 appeared like a crack running down a pane of glass, and inside Fitzgerald Field House, thousands of spectators rose to their feet not because they wanted to cheer more, but because they could no longer sit still before a kind of volleyball that had outgrown every prediction. I have watched a great many women's volleyball matches over more than three decades, from small courts in Binh Duong to large arenas across Asia, but there are moments that make you put down your pen and simply let your eyes do the work. The 38-36 set was one of those moments. When a set passes the thirty-point mark, it stops being a battle of tactics. It becomes a battle of nerve, of courage, of who dares to stand up when the legs are worn and the wrists are trembling. And at the end of that Wednesday night, the one who stood firm was not the higher-ranked team, but the team with more ways to win. SMU, ranked No. 6 nationally, defeated Pitt, ranked No. 2 nationally, in four sets. That meant Pitt's 58-match home winning streak — one of the most intimidating records a US collegiate women's volleyball program had ever built — had officially come to an end. The court does not ask your gender, only whether you dare to stand up. I have written that line many times, but every time I witness a match like this, I understand it in a different way. US collegiate women's volleyball is not a stage for lone stars. It is a stage for collectives that know how to distribute the burden, how to let each person carry a portion, and how to rise when the rest of the team is waiting. On that Wednesday night, SMU did exactly that. They did not win through one individual's brilliance. They won through a structure. The context of this match cannot be fully understood by looking only at the score. Pitt entered the match as the No. 2 team nationally, unbeaten in the early season, and holding a 58-match home winning streak. That number is not just a statistic. It is a culture. It means that for years, any team walking into Fitzgerald Field House had to face not only an opponent, but an entire atmosphere, a history, a collective belief that this place was an unbreakable fortress. Such streaks create a psychological effect that outsiders often underestimate. The home team steps onto the court with an unconscious ease. The visiting team steps on with a hint of doubt. And when a streak lasts long enough, both sides begin to believe in it as a law of nature. But a law of nature in sport exists only until someone strong enough breaks it. SMU is that team. This program joined the ACC — one of the strongest conferences in US collegiate women's volleyball — in 2026, and since then, they have quietly built a program capable of standing shoulder to shoulder with the big names. Before the match against Pitt, SMU had four wins against teams in the national top 10, including the No. 3, No. 8, and No. 9 teams. They also held a 14-match ACC winning streak, the longest active streak in the conference. Those numbers say one thing: this is not a lucky team. This is a team on the rise that has reached the threshold to compete with anyone. When I looked at the rankings before the match — Nebraska No. 1, Pitt No. 2, SMU No. 6 — I wondered whether anyone in the media truly believed SMU could do this. US collegiate women's volleyball still suffers from a chronic ailment: people love stories about the big programs, and they tend to view rising programs as temporary challengers, not genuine contenders. But volleyball, like every sport, does not operate on the logic of media. It operates on the logic of rallies. And in those rallies, SMU proved they did not come to participate. They came to win. The first remarkable thing when analyzing this match is how SMU controlled the net. They out-blocked Pitt 12.5-6. In US collegiate volleyball, double blocks are counted as half a point for each player involved, so the figure 12.5 is an NCAA convention, but its essence is clear: SMU dominated the net comprehensively. This was not a random event. It was the third consecutive match in which SMU recorded at least 12 blocks. When a team repeats a feat across three straight matches, it is no longer luck. It is a system. I once sat in the stands clapping; now I sit at the commentary desk so that others do not have to clap alone. And when sitting at the commentary desk, the first thing I learned was to distinguish between what is a phenomenon and what is a structure. A player scoring 30 points in one match can be a phenomenon. A team blocking 12 or more times in three consecutive matches is a structure. SMU has a structure. They do not rely on one individual exploding on one night. They rely on the entire system operating exactly as designed, every night, regardless of the opponent. But the most interesting aspect of SMU's win does not lie in the blocking line. It lies in how they distributed their attack. Five SMU players reached 10 or more kills in this match: Natalia Newsome with 17, Suli Davis with 17, Jadyn Livings with 13, Placide with 10, and Favor Anyanwu with 10. Five attackers reaching double digits in a four-set match is a rare figure. It means Pitt could not concentrate its block on any single player. It means that every time the ball went up, Pitt's block had to spread its attention, guess, and wait. And in volleyball, waiting is always the enemy of a block. Look at the attacking efficiency of SMU's middle blockers. The group totaled 27 kills on 47 swings, a .447 efficiency. In collegiate women's volleyball, a .447 efficiency for a middle group in a four-set match is an excellent figure. It means the quick middle attacks were not only effective but stable. Natalia Newsome, one of SMU's middle blockers, recorded 17 kills at a .519 clip — a career high. When a player hits above .500 in a match, she is not just playing well. She is playing at a different level. This leads me to a judgment I consider the most important when analyzing this match: SMU won through balance, not through a star. And their opponent, Pitt, lost through imbalance. This is a paradox that women's volleyball produces repeatedly. A team with one great star is often praised by the media. But in big matches, when the opponent's block is strong enough to read and contain that star, the team becomes frighteningly fragile. Olivia Babcock of Pitt scored 25 kills in this match. That is an impressive figure, and it also moved her to the 1,853rd kill in program history, along with her 176th career ace — both Pitt records. Babcock is a special talent, a player any program would want. But her 25 kills in a four-set match, while no teammate reached double digits, is a warning sign. When one player accounts for nearly half of a team's offensive output, it means the team depends on a single resource. And when that team's opponent is a side out-blocking them 12.5-6, that single resource becomes an easy target. I do not say this to diminish Babcock. On the contrary, I say it to point out a structural problem that even elite programs often fall into. When you have an attacker who is so outstanding, you tend to build your game around her. That is a reasonable short-term choice, but it creates a long-term hole. Teams that can read that game, like SMU, will exploit it. And when they do, the star-dependent team has no backup plan. Now look at how SMU distributed. Suli Davis, an outside hitter in only her sophomore year, recorded 17 kills, 9 digs, and 4 blocks. This was the 14th match of her career with 10 or more kills. Jadyn Livings, another outside hitter, recorded 13 kills at a .435 clip — her season best. Favor Anyanwu recorded 10 kills and 9 blocks, nearly a double-double. Libero Victoria Harris had 20 digs and 4 aces, her second career 20-dig match and a career-high-tying ace total. Looking at these numbers, we see a clear picture. SMU had no player reaching 25 kills like Babcock, but they had five players reaching 10 or more. This is the difference between a team that can be read and a team that cannot. When you face Pitt, you know the ball will often be set to Babcock. When you face SMU, you must prepare for five different options. And in volleyball, preparing for five options is always harder than preparing for one. There is one small but notable detail: Suli Davis is only a sophomore. That means SMU is not only winning in the present. They are building a foundation for years to come. When a young player has already recorded 14 matches with 10 or more kills early in her career, it is a sign of a program that knows how to develop talent. And a program that knows how to develop talent is usually a program that will remain at the top for many seasons. But let me return to the detail I consider most important in this match: the third set that stretched to 38-36. In US collegiate volleyball, sets are played to 25 points, win by two, with no cap. That means a set can go on endlessly, and the 38-36 set is proof of that. When a set passes 30 points, it is no longer decided by tactics. It is decided by other factors: the ability to stay calm in the face of set point, the ability to recover after long rallies, and the ability to maintain focus through dozens of side-outs. A 38-36 set means both teams had moments when they could have ended the set. It means both teams missed set points. And it means both teams proved they could play at their highest level under the greatest pressure. Such sets do not reveal a team's weaknesses. They reveal its strengths. And the remarkable thing is that SMU won that set. In a set where every error could lead to defeat, SMU was the team that made fewer errors. This brings me to a perspective I consider necessary to fully understand this match. For many years, US collegiate women's volleyball was defined by one question: which team has the better star? But that question is gradually becoming obsolete. The teams that win in the current era are not the teams with the best star. They are the teams with the best system. They are the teams that can distribute the attacking burden, control the net, and maintain stability across many matches. This is why I believe SMU's win is not a shock. It is a logical result. A team that has won four matches against top-10 opponents, holds a 14-match ACC streak, and has blocked 12 or more times in three straight matches cannot be viewed as a weak team. When such a team faces a star-dependent team, the result is not a surprise. The result is a confirmation. I recall a lesson from 2026, when I served as a guest commentator for a World Cup match. On live air, I said that our women's players play better but nobody watches. Immediately, I was criticized for speaking at the wrong moment. The lesson I drew was not to stop telling the truth. The lesson I drew was to choose how to tell the truth so that it would be heard. And the best way to tell the truth is to let data and story speak for themselves. The match between SMU and Pitt is a perfect example of that. You do not need to declare that US collegiate women's volleyball is changing. You only need to point out that a No. 6 team beat a No. 2 team, that a 58-match home streak has ended, and that the winning team did it by distributing its attack across five different players rather than relying on one star. Those facts speak for themselves. Now look at the broader picture of US collegiate women's volleyball. Before this match, Pitt was one of the top two unbeaten teams in the country. After this match, Nebraska is the only remaining unbeaten team. That means the pressure of being unbeaten now falls entirely on one program. And as every sports fan knows, the pressure of being unbeaten is a burden that can become an advantage or an obstacle, depending on how the team faces it. But there is something more notable about this picture: the competitiveness of US collegiate women's volleyball is at an unprecedented level. When a No. 2 team can lose to a No. 6 team, it means the gap between the top teams is narrowing. It means any team in the top 10 can beat any other team in the top 10 on a given night. And that is good news for this sport, because it means every match matters, and every match can produce a new story. I have followed women's volleyball for decades, and I can say this is one of the most exciting times to follow this sport. Not because one team dominates, but because no team dominates. That uncertainty is a sign of health. It means the sport is growing, expanding, and creating more opportunities for more programs. Now look at the aspect few pay attention to: the rematch. Just four days after this match, SMU and Pitt will meet again on Sunday, October 11, this time at SMU's home. The rematch will air on ESPN, a sign that national interest in this matchup has risen considerably after Wednesday's match. This is a detail I consider extremely important. In US collegiate women's volleyball, two teams meeting twice within four days is unusual. It typically happens when a conference expands and teams must meet more often in a season. But when it happens, it creates a special dynamic. It turns two separate matches into a tactical series, in which each coach must adjust based on what happened in the previous match. For Pitt, the rematch is a chance to prove that Wednesday's loss was an accident. They will need to find a way to reduce Babcock's burden, distribute the attack more, and deal with SMU's block more effectively. For SMU, the rematch is a chance to prove that Wednesday's win was not a one-off. They will need to sustain their level of efficiency against an opponent that has learned its lesson. This is where the psychological factor becomes important. After the 58-match home streak ended, Pitt must face a new reality: they are no longer invincible at home. That could free them, or it could strip them of confidence. Conversely, SMU must face a new pressure: they have proved they can beat Pitt, and now they must prove they can do it again. The pressure of being expected is often greater than the pressure of not being expected. But there is one thing I want to say about how coaches handle defeat. Dan Fisher, Pitt's head coach, made a remark I consider notable. He said his team needed to experience those emotions. This is a very mature way of speaking. It means Fisher understands that a team unbeaten in the early season may not have been fully tested psychologically. And when a team has not been tested, they may not know how to react when they face real difficulty. Fisher's remark shows something important: Pitt does not view this loss as a disaster. They view it as a lesson. And in sport, how a team reacts to defeat is often more important than the defeat itself. A team that learns from defeat is a team that can grow stronger. A team that looks to assign blame is a team that can collapse. Olivia Babcock, Pitt's star, also made a notable remark. She said her team had not yet met a high standard in matches. This is an admirable admission from a player who scored 25 kills. Instead of taking pride in personal achievement, she focused on the collective standard. That is a sign of a healthy team culture, where responsibility is shared and standards are placed above the individual. When a team has a coach who knows how to handle defeat and a star who knows how to take responsibility, that team has a foundation for recovery. And that is why I believe the rematch will be well worth watching. Pitt will not come to Binh Duong as a wounded team. They will come as a team that has learned a lesson. Now look at another aspect I consider important: the development of US collegiate women's volleyball as a talent pipeline. The NCAA is not only where players compete. It is where they are trained, developed, and prepared for professional careers and the national team. What happens in matches like SMU versus Pitt directly affects the flow of talent in this sport. When SMU beats Pitt, they do not merely gain a win. They gain a recruiting asset. A win over the No. 2 team nationally is proof that this program can compete at the top. And for young players looking for a program to develop in, that proof is worth more than any promise. Wins like this attract talent, and talent attracts more wins. It is a positive cycle any program wants to join. But there is another aspect of this system I want to address: the transition from collegiate volleyball to professional volleyball. In recent years, US women's professional volleyball has made significant strides with the arrival of new leagues. These leagues are creating more opportunities for women's players after they graduate. And players like Babcock, Davis, and Newsome are the ones who will benefit from that growth. This means that what happens in a match like SMU versus Pitt matters not only within a collegiate season. It matters within the entire ecosystem of women's volleyball. When the quality of play rises, the value of the sport rises. And when value rises, new opportunities open for women's players. I have witnessed many generations of women's players struggle for recognition. I have witnessed players sell lottery tickets to fund their passion. I have witnessed players forced to retire because of family hardship. And every time I witness such things, I remember that recognition is not a gift. It is a right. Women's players do not need pity. They need to be treated fairly. And that fairness begins with the smallest things. It begins with a collegiate women's volleyball match being broadcast on national television. It begins with a women's player being judged on her performance, not on her gender. It begins with a women's team being analyzed tactically in earnest, not merely praised for touching stories. Equality does not mean everyone reaches the finish line the same way, but that everyone has a fair starting line. When I look at the match between SMU and Pitt, I see two women's teams competing at the highest level of tactics and intensity. I see blocks calculated with care, attacks coordinated with rhythm, and digs demanding extraordinary reflexes. I see a sport at its highest level. And I see that without needing to mention gender. That is what I have pursued throughout my career. Not to say that women's volleyball is better than men's. But to say that women's volleyball deserves to be treated as a sport, not as a side activity. And matches like SMU versus Pitt are the strongest evidence for that. Now look at an aspect I consider the most interesting in this match: how SMU built its win set by set. They did not win through one explosive set. They won through accumulation. In each set, they sustained their stability at the net, their distribution in attack, and their focus in defense. This is how a mature team wins. They do not rely on luck. They rely on a system. And that system is built on a principle I consider the foundation of every team sport: no one carries the whole team, but everyone carries together. When five players reach 10 or more kills, it means no one bears the pressure alone. When a libero has 20 digs, it means the attackers can trust that if they do not score, the ball still has a chance to come back. When a middle group hits .447, it means everyone on the team knows that every position matters. This is why I believe SMU will go far. Not because they have the single best player, but because they have an excellent system. And in US collegiate women's volleyball, where the season is long and pressure accumulates match by match, an excellent system is often more important than an excellent individual. But I also do not want to underestimate Pitt. This program remains one of the elite in US collegiate women's volleyball. They still have an excellent coach in Dan Fisher, a star in Olivia Babcock, and a solid foundation built over many years. One defeat does not define a program. How a program reacts to defeat defines it. And Pitt's reaction so far has been very positive. They did not panic. They did not assign blame. They acknowledged they need to improve, and they focused on improving. That is a sign of a mature program. And mature programs are usually the ones that recover most strongly. Now look at an aspect I consider important for the future of women's volleyball: the growth of the ACC as a conference. When SMU joined the ACC in 2026, the conference became more competitive. And when a conference becomes more competitive, the quality of its teams rises. Teams must improve to compete. And when they improve, they become stronger. This is a positive cycle any conference wants. When you have more strong teams, you have more compelling matches. When you have more compelling matches, you have more viewers. When you have more viewers, you have more revenue. And when you have more revenue, you can invest more in your programs. Of course, this is an argument I often hear in the sports business world. And I must say I am somewhat skeptical of it. Because I have witnessed too many times that revenue does not automatically translate into fairness. I have seen women's leagues receive less investment despite creating value. I have seen women's players paid less despite competing at a higher level. I have seen women's broadcast rights undervalued despite attracting comparable audiences. So when I look at the growth of US collegiate women's volleyball, I see both hope and caution. Hope, because the quality of play is rising and interest is rising. Caution, because I know that growth does not automatically lead to fairness. But there is one thing I firmly believe: quality will speak for itself. When a collegiate women's volleyball match stretches to a 38-36 set, when a No. 6 team beats a No. 2 team, when a 58-match home streak ends, people cannot deny that this sport is at a high level. And once quality is recognized, fairness becomes harder to deny. This is why I write about matches like this. Not merely to report the result. But to record the moments when women's volleyball proves its value through play itself. Because I believe the best way to change perception is not to argue. It is to let people watch, let people see, and let people reach their own conclusions. When I think about this match, I think about what it represents. It represents a moment when a rising team proved it had arrived. It represents a moment when an elite team realized it still had things to learn. And it represents a moment when US collegiate women's volleyball proved it is one of the most competitive and compelling sports in the world. But there is one thing I want to emphasize: SMU's win is not an ending. It is a beginning. Because the rematch takes place just four days later. And in those four days, both teams must face new questions. Pitt must find a way to prove it is still an elite team. SMU must find a way to prove its win was not a one-off. And while waiting for the rematch, I will continue to do my work: observe, analyze, and tell the stories of the women competing at the highest level. Because I believe every story told is a small step toward a world where women's volleyball no longer needs to prove its value, because that value is already recognized. I recall the first video I made for the Binh Duong Sports Her channel in 2026. It was an interview with a midfielder that reached only 300 views. But the article about her selling lottery tickets to fund her passion was widely shared, and the channel grew to 12,000 followers within a week. The lesson I learned from that was that the online community does not lack interest. They only lack stories that touch the emotions. And the match between SMU and Pitt is such a story. It is a story about perseverance, about balance, about how a collective can overcome an individual. It is a story about how a rising team can beat an elite team. And it is a story about how US collegiate women's volleyball is entering a new era, where competition is no longer the exception but the rule. When I look back on my career, from my first days in a television sports department, to my years as a commentator, to my livestreams with women's players during the pandemic, I see one thread running through it all: the belief that women's sports deserve to be treated fairly. And that belief is not abstract. It is built on specific moments, specific matches, specific numbers. The match between SMU and Pitt is one of those moments. It is proof that US collegiate women's volleyball is a sport at the highest level, with players at the highest level, and matches at the highest level. And it is a reminder that fairness is not a gift bestowed. It is a right demanded. Now, as I prepare for the rematch on Sunday, October 11, I wonder what will happen. Will Pitt recover and prove that Wednesday's loss was just an accident? Will SMU continue its run and prove it is a genuine elite team? Will the rematch produce another set stretching to 38-36? Those questions will be answered on the court, not on paper. But one thing I know for certain: whatever the result of the rematch, US collegiate women's volleyball will keep growing. Because the quality of play is rising, and quality always finds its audience. And in a world where women's sports is often undervalued, witnessing a match like SMU versus Pitt is a source of hope. I will keep watching. I will keep analyzing. I will keep telling the stories of the women competing at the highest level. Because that is my work. And because I believe every story told is a small step toward a world where women's volleyball no longer needs to prove its value. Women's players tell stories. That is the name of the livestream series I ran during the pandemic. And it is also my working principle: to let women's players tell their own stories. Because they have much to say. And the world needs to listen. As I finish this article, I think about the 38-36 set. It is a number I will remember for a long time. Not because it is strange, but because it represents what I love most about sport: uncertainty. In a set stretching to 38-36, either team can win. And in such a set, what decides is not talent, but nerve. That is why I believe women's sports has a special power. It is not only about physicality or technique. It is about nerve. And nerve does not distinguish gender. Nerve only distinguishes between those who dare to stand up and those who do not. In the 38-36 set, SMU dared to stand up. And on that Wednesday night, they proved they deserve to stand where they stand. That is the story I want to tell. It is the story of a rising team, an elite team, and a sport in change. And it is a story I believe deserves to be heard. The World Cup taught me that the best commentator is not the one who talks the most, but the one who makes others heard. I hope this article has made the women's players of SMU and Pitt heard, if only a little. Because they deserve it. Because they competed with a level of dedication and nerve that any athlete, in any sport, should emulate. And when I think about the future of women's volleyball, I see a bright future. Not because everything will be easy, but because players like Newsome, Davis, Livings, Harris, and Babcock prove every day that women's volleyball is a sport at the highest level. And once quality is recognized, fairness will follow. That is my belief. That is why I do this work. And that is why I will keep watching, analyzing, and telling the stories of the women competing at the highest level.