38-36: The Suffocating Set and How SMU Buried Pitt's 58-Match Home Winning Streak

The score stopped at 38-36. Not a penalty shootout, not an extended stoppage time in football — but the score of a single volleyball set. A set in which both teams played as if neither wanted to be the first to fall. When the final ball hit the floor on Pitt's side, the arena went silent for a brief moment, then shattered into two worlds: one side the roar of SMU players, the other the disbelief of a program that had not lost at home in 58 consecutive matches.

I have watched many long sets in over sixteen years of covering women's volleyball. But 38-36 is not just a dry number to record in a box score. It is the trace of a battle in which every point was a moment both sides had to decide how much they still trusted their system. And that night, SMU — the No. 6 team in the nation — trusted their system one beat longer than Pitt. One beat. That was all that separated a historic unbeaten streak from a quiet Wednesday evening.

There are nights when the scoreboard cannot tell the story. But there are nights when the numbers themselves are the most honest narrator. This is one of them.

Context: A long streak and a rising team

To understand why this match mattered, it must be placed in the proper context of American collegiate women's volleyball — NCAA Division I. This is not an FIVB-standard international club competition. This is the collegiate system, where the season runs from August to December, culminating in a 64-team NCAA tournament. And more importantly, it is the primary feeder for the US Women's National Team and the emerging professional leagues such as LOVB and PVF.

Pitt entered this match as the No. 2 team in the nation, with a 58-match home winning streak — a number bordering on legendary at the collegiate level. They are an established power, a program under coach Dan Fisher, regarded as one of the top program-builders in collegiate women's volleyball. A 58-match home winning streak is not luck. It is the result of years of recruiting, of a winning culture, and of a belief that home court is an impregnable fortress.

On the other side of the net, SMU entered as the No. 6 team. But the "No. 6" label deceives many. SMU was carrying a 14-match ACC winning streak — the longest active streak in the entire conference. They had four top-10 wins this season, having beaten teams ranked No. 3, No. 8, No. 9, and now No. 2. SMU joined the ACC in 2026, and moving into a stronger conference had raised their own competitive ceiling.

Before the match, the two teams' conference records were SMU 5-0 and Pitt 4-1. That meant this was no exhibition. This was a match with direct weight on the ACC title race and on both teams' NCAA tournament resumes. And interestingly, just four days later, on Sunday, October 11, the two would meet again in a rematch broadcast live on ESPN. A two-match series in a single week. A chess game played twice in a row.

The crux: The battle at the net

If I could keep only one number from this match, I would choose 12.5-6. That is the blocking score between SMU and Pitt. Under NCAA statistical convention, blocks are reported as a combined figure — meaning a double block by two players is counted as half a point for each, so the 12.5 reflects shared blocks counted in half-units. But however you count it, the gap between 12.5 and 6 is an overwhelming gap. SMU won the battle at the net decisively, and that was the decisive tactical lever of the entire match.

This is something I always emphasize when analyzing collegiate women's volleyball: winning at the net is not just about blocking more than your opponent. It is the combination of two things at once — solid blocking and efficient middle attack. And SMU did both.

Look at the hitting efficiency of SMU's middle blocker group: 27 kills on 47 swings, an efficiency rate of 0.447. In a four-set match, this is an excellent level for an entire middle group. But the story is even more remarkable when broken down by individual.

Natalia Newsome, a middle blocker, recorded 17 kills with a 0.519 efficiency — a career high. A middle blocker hitting over 0.500 in a single match is something you only see a few times per season. It means that out of every two swings, she converted more than one into a point in an almost perfect manner. I have spent hours rewatching footage of top middle blockers' attacks, and I learned one thing: when a middle hits over 0.500, it is almost never about the individual being great. It is about the setter and the middle finding each other in a perfect rhythm, and about the entire back-row passing system keeping the first contact good enough to sustain that rhythm.

But Newsome was not alone. Jadyn Livings, an outside hitter, recorded 13 kills at 0.435 — her season best. For an outside hitter, who frequently receives difficult balls from the edge of the net, 0.435 is a strong number. Suli Davis, a sophomore outside hitter, recorded 17 kills, 9 digs, and 4 blocks. This was the 14th double-digit kill match of her career. Favor Anyanwu recorded 10 kills and 9 blocks, nearly a double-double, completely dominating at the net.

And this is what made SMU's offense extremely difficult to defend: they had five players reach double-digit kills. Newsome 17, Davis 17, Livings 13, Placide 10, Anyanwu 10. Five attacking heads at once. No single star for the opponent to load their block against. This is the type of attack distribution I call an "unpredictable structure" — and it is a nightmare for any blocking system.

On the other side, the picture was the exact opposite. Olivia Babcock of Pitt recorded 25 kills. That is an impressive individual number — she also recorded the 1,853rd kill of her career and her 176th ace, both program records at Pitt. But place that number of 25 kills next to the 12.5-6 block differential favoring SMU. In a four-set match, Babcock's 25 kills accounted for nearly half of Pitt's total offensive output. When a team must rely on one attacker for nearly half its output, and the opponent is winning the net battle by an overwhelming margin, that concentration becomes an exploitable tactical weakness.

I have witnessed this before. I remember a summer evening in 2026 in France, when Japan's women's national team held 58% possession but still lost 1-2 to the Netherlands in the round of 16 of the Women's World Cup. That night I stayed in the stands forty minutes after the final whistle, recounting Japan's nine turnovers in midfield in just the first twelve minutes. All of them came from the Netherlands' high pressing scheme. The lesson I drew from that night was: a team can control the ball more, can have more outstanding individuals, but if their system is broken at a specific point, possession becomes meaningless. In the SMU-Pitt match, Pitt's breaking point was precisely its over-concentration on Babcock.

This needs to be stated clearly to avoid misunderstanding. The concentration on Babcock is not her fault. She is a top asset, a program record-holder, a magnetic player. The problem lies in the structure: when an opponent blocks as well as SMU, they can commit resources to lock down Babcock, and at that moment Pitt needs a second attacking source strong enough to release the pressure. This match showed that the second attacking source was not yet strong enough to compensate when Babcock was contained.

What lies behind the 0.447 number

I want to pause longer on SMU's middle group's 0.447, because it reveals more than its surface suggests.

In volleyball, a middle blocker's hitting efficiency depends on two prerequisites that spectators usually do not see. First is the connection between the setter and the middle — a relationship requiring hundreds of hours of practice to achieve precise rhythm. Second is the quality of the first pass. A middle can only attack effectively if the ball is delivered to the setter well enough for him or her to have enough distribution options.

When a middle group hits 0.447 in a match, it implies that SMU's passing system held up far better than the raw numbers suggest. Public data does not provide SMU's perfect-pass rate or accurate pass counts. But the causal relationship is fairly clear: if SMU could not control the first contact, their setter would be forced to send high, predictable balls to the edges, and the middle efficiency would collapse. The fact that the middle group maintained 0.447 means SMU won both in the back row and at the front. I mark this as an inference with medium confidence, because specific passing data was not published.

There is another detail I want to emphasize: the contribution of libero Victoria Harris with 20 digs and 4 aces. This was the second match of her career in which she reached 20 digs, and her ace count tied her career high. What makes this number notable is that it reflects a dual contribution that is often underrated: solid back-row defense and aggressive serving from the libero position itself.

I always tell people new to watching women's volleyball that the libero is the most misunderstood position on the court. They do not score many points, they do not appear in highlight reels, but they are the ones holding the whole system from collapsing. When a libero both digs well and serves aces, that team has a dual weapon the opponent must factor into every plan. Harris's 20 digs and 4 aces are evidence that SMU did not just win at the net, but also in the back row.

And there is one more number worth pondering: this was SMU's third consecutive match with at least 12 team blocks. This turns SMU's blocking ability from a one-off peak into a repeatable systemic characteristic. In sports data analysis, this is the difference between signal and noise. A single match with 12 blocks could be luck. Three consecutive matches with at least 12 blocks is a trend. And a trend is predictable, repeatable, and can be the foundation for sustained success.

The 38-36 set: When the rules create a survival battle

Now let's talk about the third set, the one that ended at 38-36.

In volleyball, the rules are quite simple: a set ends when a team reaches 25 points and leads by at least two. There is no ceiling. That means if two teams keep trading points, a set can stretch indefinitely. The 38-36 set is a direct consequence of that rule.

A set stretching to 38-36 is not just a long set. It is a test of roster depth, of serving nerve at the decisive moment, and of the coaching staff's substitution management. When a set stretches far beyond the 25-point mark, both teams must play in a state I call a "side-out war." Each team tries to keep its serve, because losing the serve means handing the opponent an opportunity.

The important thing to understand is: a set stretching to 38-36 is usually not decided by one team collapsing. It is decided by moments of execution at crunch points and by small errors at the most tense moments. When both teams have reached their physical and mental limits, what decides the outcome is no longer pure technique, but composure.

I have watched similar long sets, and each time, I think of something I learned from an old positional chart. From an old positional chart, I saw an entire world of hers. In 2026, when I was just 23, assigned to record player positions in a Nadeshiko League match, I set aside the stat sheet to follow a 19-year-old midfielder. She ran 11.2 km in the match, played 38 passes into the final third, created three big chances, and proactively moved into the gap between two center-backs 74 times — most on the team. Thanks to my sports science knowledge from my master's program, I noticed her acceleration frequency was abnormal. But what I learned was not those numbers. What I learned was: behind every number is a person making hundreds of small decisions every second.

When SMU and Pitt entered the 38-36 set, behind every point were dozens of such decisions — where to serve, which way to block, whether to substitute, whether to take a risk. And in those moments, the team with the more solid system is usually the winner. Because when physical energy is drained, you no longer have the capacity to be creative. You can only rely on what has been trained to the point of becoming instinct.

The counter-intuitive angle: This is not an upset

The popular way to tell the story of this match would be: "The No. 6 team beat the No. 2 team, ending a 58-match home streak — a big upset." I understand why people want to tell the story that way. It is dramatic, it spreads easily, and it celebrates the underdog. But I do not believe that is the most honest way to tell it.

My counter-intuitive angle is this: this is not an upset, but a logical result. SMU had four top-10 wins this season — they beat No. 3, No. 8, No. 9, and now No. 2. They carry a 14-match ACC winning streak. A team that does all that is not a lucky team. They are a genuine national title contender.

When a team has already beaten three top-10 teams and carries a 14-match streak, their beating one more top-10 team should not be called an "upset." It should be called what it really is: a confirmation of standing.

And here is the second, subtler counter-intuitive part. I would argue that Pitt's 58-match home streak, viewed from one angle, concealed a gap in their ability to withstand pressure. Listen to coach Dan Fisher's own words after the match. He said his team "needed to experience those emotions." This is a very telling statement. If a team needs to experience the emotions of a loss, it implies they had been winning too much without being truly tested. In sports psychology, this is a real phenomenon: when a team keeps winning in a comfortable state, they do not develop the ability to handle tense end-of-set moments. And when they finally meet an opponent strong enough to drag them into a 38-36 set, they discover they lack the mental tools they never needed before.

In other words, the 58-match streak was not just an achievement. It could also be a trap — a comfort zone in which the team never had to learn how to fight in desperation. I mark this as an inference with medium confidence, because I do not have data on Pitt's prior difficult matches. But Fisher's words are a signal worth pondering.

And here is the final counter-intuitive part, perhaps most important to me as someone who writes about women's sports. When a team like SMU beats a team like Pitt, the media's default reaction is to celebrate the "giant-killer." But that framing inadvertently diminishes SMU's true value. They are not an ordinary team having a magical night. They are a program being built methodically, with a balanced roster and a repeatable blocking system. Calling them an "upset-maker" is a way of avoiding admitting that they have become a genuine force.

The rematch and the four-day time machine

There is a detail in this match that I think is most important for the near future: the two teams would meet again just four days later, on Sunday, October 11, broadcast live on ESPN.

I do not remember ever seeing a collegiate match pair with such a short gap between meetings. Four days. That means both coaching staffs had only an extremely short window to analyze film, adjust serving plans, and prepare for an opponent they had just faced. This is a chess game replayed almost immediately.

From a tactical standpoint, this rematch will be a test of adaptability. Pitt will have to find a way to diversify its offense, reduce Babcock's load, and find a way to counter SMU's block. SMU will have to prepare for a different version of Pitt — a team that has learned from defeat and will not repeat old mistakes.

There is a subtle advantage SMU holds: they won on the road in the first match, and the rematch will be on their home court. The home advantage flips. In collegiate volleyball, where crowd noise can affect players' ability to communicate, home advantage is a real, if small, factor.

And the match being placed on ESPN is a signal of commercial value. It shows that organizers and the broadcaster recognized this pairing had appeal. It may be that after Wednesday's result, ESPN's interest increased. This is an inference with low confidence, because I do not know whether the broadcast schedule was set in advance. But either way, a collegiate women's volleyball match being broadcast nationally is a good sign for the growth of the sport.

What lies behind the balance

I want to devote a paragraph to what I consider the deepest tactical lesson from this match.

SMU's balance in attack is not just a tactic. It is a team-building philosophy. When you have five players who can score in double digits, you create a system in which there is no dead spot for the opponent to target. The opponent cannot commit two or three blockers to a single attacker, because if they do, the other four will punish them. This is the kind of structure coaches call "hard to scout" — meaning the opponent cannot prepare a simple defensive plan.

Conversely, Pitt's concentration on Babcock is an "easy to scout" structure. The opponent knows where the ball will go in decisive moments. And when the opponent knows, they can prepare.

I recall something from my early career years. In 2026, when I began working at local radio stations, I was taught that a good story never relies on a single character. If your story has only one star and everything else is background, then when that star shines, the story is good; but when that star dims, the story collapses. The most enduring stories are those with multiple characters shining together. I think volleyball is the same. The most enduring teams are those that do not depend on a single star.

This does not mean Pitt was wrong to build around Babcock. She is a special talent, and any coach would build around a player like that. But it does mean Pitt needs a second attacking source strong enough to release pressure from her in big matches. This is a roster structure issue, and it can be solved through recruiting and player development in the coming seasons.

About the individual numbers

Before I close, I need to say something about the individual numbers in this match, because I do not want them to be misread.

Newsome's "career-high efficiency" and Livings's "season-best" labels are peaks of a single match. They are impressive, but should not be extrapolated to season-level performance. One match is a single data point. In sports analysis, we need to distinguish clearly between a single peak and a sustained trend.

The only thing with cross-match support in this data is SMU's blocking trend — three consecutive matches with at least 12 blocks. This is a signal with a basis for believing it can repeat. But even this needs further tracking.

And I also need to speak about the limits of the data source. This analysis is based on a secondary source aggregating from Volleyballmag.com, citing NCAA.com. The raw stat sheet is NCAA-sourced, but not independently verified here. That means the precise numbers should be treated as data pending verification. We do not have the full box score — no SMU team hitting percentage, no reception rate, no error counts, no setter assist numbers. The offensive picture we have is a partial one.

I always tell my readers that an honest analyst is one who admits what they do not know. I do not know exactly how SMU won this match at the most granular level. I know they won at the net, they distributed their attack in a balanced way, and they had an excellent libero. Those are three things with a basis for belief. But what happened in the players' heads during the 38-36 set, that is something no stat sheet can capture.

What is changing

There is one detail I saved for the end, because I think it says a lot about the current moment in American collegiate women's volleyball: after this match, Nebraska became the only remaining undefeated team at No. 1 in the nation.

What does that mean? It means the top of American collegiate women's volleyball is becoming crowded and unpredictable. A No. 2 team can lose to a No. 6 team. A No. 6 team can beat four top-10 teams in a season. No team can sit comfortably on its throne anymore.

I think this is good news for the sport. Fierce competition at the top produces more compelling matches, more compelling stories, and more opportunities for young players to be seen. When any team can beat any team, every match becomes important. And when every match becomes important, every moment of play becomes worth watching.

When I sit rewatching the plays of this match — Anyanwu's blocks, Newsome's spikes, Harris's digs — I think about why I chose to write about women's volleyball. There are athletes who do not need the spotlight. They just need someone to sit down and record them at length. SMU and Pitt played a match in which every point was a small story about how humans can endure and overcome pressure.

And perhaps the most memorable thing from this match is not the 58-match streak ending, nor SMU's four top-10 wins. The most memorable thing is the moment in the 38-36 set, when both teams were exhausted physically and mentally, but no one among them wanted to be the first to give up. In that moment, American collegiate women's volleyball showed it does not need a scripted story to be compelling. It just needs two teams willing to play to the end.

So when someone asks me whether this was an upset, I will answer: it is a result that American collegiate women's volleyball was due to have. A methodically built team, with a balanced system and a repeatable block, beat a power built around a single star. And in four days, they will have to prove that this was not luck, but a new order taking shape. I will sit down to watch. And I will record it at length.