SMU Beats Pittsburgh: Block and Middle Attack End the 58-Match Home Streak

I was sitting in front of a screen in Shanghai, past midnight, when the third set stretched to 38-36. That was no ordinary set. It was the kind where every ball over the net made the arena hold its breath, and every touch carried the weight of a 58-match home winning streak hanging over someone's head. A stadium never falls silent; only our hearts stop counting the rhythm.

When the final whistle came, the No. 6 team in the country — SMU — had beaten the No. 2 team — Pittsburgh — in four sets. A 58-match home unbeaten streak, stretching across multiple seasons and generations of players, ended on an October night. What made me sit down to write about it was this: the win did not come from luck, but from a structure built patiently over years.

To understand why this result carries weight, it must be placed inside the ecosystem of American collegiate women's volleyball — NCAA Division I. This is a collegiate system, not an international FIVB one. The season runs from August to December and ends with the 64-team NCAA Tournament. From here, players move up to the new American professional leagues such as LOVB and PVF, then on to the national team. A night like this shapes the conference standings, and beyond that, the career paths of young women.

These two teams represent two different models of collegiate women's volleyball. Pittsburgh is an established power — No. 2 in the nation, led by head coach Dan Fisher, who has built an elite program with clear discipline and identity. SMU is a riser — an ACC member only since 2026, yet already with four top-10 wins this season (over No. 3, No. 8, No. 9, and now No. 2). SMU's 14-match ACC winning streak is the longest active one in the conference. That is the profile of an ascending program, not a one-off.

The matchup also had a special context: the two teams met twice within four days. The first match was on Pittsburgh's home floor — where SMU had to travel and win on the opponent's fortress. The rematch comes on Sunday, October 11, broadcast live on ESPN. A women's collegiate pairing given a national broadcast shows the organizers understand its value. For someone who has followed women's volleyball for years, seeing such a matchup treated as a major media event is welcome — though I still wonder why it took this long.

But let me talk about what actually decided the match.

The core point lies in the block and the distribution of the attack. SMU beat Pittsburgh at the net with a 12.5-6 blocking margin, and their middle blockers hit .447 — an elite level. In volleyball, hitting percentage is kills minus errors divided by total attempts. A .447 clip for a middle group across four sets reflects a strong setter-middle connection, fast tempo, and a serve-receive system stable enough to feed the middle.

A note on how the NCAA counts blocks. Blocks are recorded under a half-block convention: when two players share a block, each is credited with half. So SMU's 12.5 is not a typo but a convention. Even so, comparing 12.5 with 6 remains valid, and it shows SMU dominating the net. This was SMU's third straight match with at least 12 blocks — a sign of a repeatable defensive system, not a single peak.

When a team controls both the block and the middle, it is playing the classic formula to beat an opponent that leans on one dominant attacker. Pittsburgh is exactly that team. Olivia Babcock — the program's star, holder of its career records with her 1,853rd kill and 176th ace — scored 25 kills. That is a notable individual feat. But those 25 kills also say the opposite: Pittsburgh funneled nearly its entire attacking load onto one player.

This is the crux I want to dwell on. In modern women's volleyball, a dominant attacker is an asset, but it can become a weakness against an opponent that reads the game. As SMU's block kept standing in the right spot, Pittsburgh's setter was forced to feed Babcock in difficult situations — high balls, balls off the net, balls in a passive posture. No attacker, however good, can single-handedly break a well-organized defense. Here, the over-concentration on one individual is the consequence of lacking a second reliable option under pressure.

SMU attacked in a completely different way. Five of their players reached 10 or more kills: Natalia Newsome (17 kills, .519 — a career high), Suli Davis (17 kills, 9 digs, 4 blocks — her 14th double-digit kill match), Jadyn Livings (13 kills, .435, a season best), Placide (10), and Favor Anyanwu (10 kills, 9 blocks, nearly a double-double). A team with five dangerous attackers is extremely hard to read. The opposing block cannot load up on one spot, because the ball can come from anywhere. That is why I call SMU a structurally hard-to-scout team — a quality that usually accompanies sustainable results rather than fleeting peaks.

What is notable about Suli Davis is that she is only a sophomore. A young player carrying a key role in a match this big says SMU has a roster with depth and a long-term growth trajectory. If a sophomore can put up 17 kills against the No. 2 team in the country, this program has plenty of room to climb in the seasons ahead.

Equally notable was libero Victoria Harris: 20 digs and 4 aces. This was her second 20-dig match of the season, and her ace count tied a career high. The libero role is often underrated in reporting, but a libero who defends well in the back row and serves aggressively in the front is a dual weapon few notice. When SMU's back row held firm, their middle could confidently run quick attacks — and the middle is where the match was decided.

In modern volleyball, the block and defense operate as one integrated unit. A good block does not only score directly; it steers the opponent's ball into spots the back row is already waiting for. When SMU posted 12.5 blocks, they did not just win points at the net; they forced Pittsburgh to hit into less favorable angles, and those balls created counterattack chances for SMU's back row. That is why Harris's back-row contribution and Anyanwu's net presence cannot be separated: they are two halves of the same system.

And behind all of it is a factor rarely mentioned: first-pass quality. For SMU's middle group to hit .447, their setter needed a steady supply of favorable balls to run quick attacks. That requires a stable serve-receive system, even though the source does not provide specific perfect-pass numbers. The high middle efficiency is indirect evidence that SMU's serve-receive operated better than the basic stat sheet shows.

Of course, the third set that stretched to 38-36 cannot be ignored. In NCAA volleyball, each set goes to 25 points and must be won by two, with no cap. That win-by-two rule produced the unusually long set. A set reaching 38-36 says both teams kept scoring in side-out situations — meaning neither collapsed. It was decided by crunch-point execution and errors, not by one team falling apart. In such sets, roster depth and composure at the service line become decisive. SMU winning a set that long shows they are strong technically, and also steady mentally.

I have watched a great many women's volleyball matches over the years, from domestic leagues to international ones, and what I have learned is this: long sets do not break the strongest team, they break the least prepared one. SMU entered that set with clear physical and mental preparation. Pittsburgh, though the higher-rated team, was the one that had never been pushed into such difficulty during the early season.

And this is where I want to offer a contrarian angle.

This loss exposed a weakness that had long existed but had never been exploited — because the 58-match home streak had quietly lulled the team into a comfort zone. A long winning streak carries pride, and it is also a blanket that hides unresolved problems. When you keep winning at home, you are rarely forced to face stalemate at the final points of a set. Coach Dan Fisher himself acknowledged this in his own way: the team needed to experience those emotions. That is the language of a coach who understands his team had been winning without being truly tested.

There is a paradox here that women's sports media often overlooks. A long unbeaten streak is celebrated as a symbol of strength, but it is also a form of isolation from competitive reality. Pittsburgh entered this match with the mindset of a team that had never lost at home, and when SMU forced them to fight for every point, they reacted more slowly than a team used to adversity. Babcock, in her post-match remarks, also admitted the team had not yet met a high standard in matches. That is healthy self-awareness — but it also confirms the problem existed before this match.

I do not want to turn this into an indictment of Pittsburgh. That team remains an elite power, with an excellent coach and a class star. But from a team-building perspective, the heavy reliance on Babcock is a fixable risk — and having it exposed before the key stretch of the season may actually be good for them. Problems hidden until November cause far greater damage than problems revealed in October.

For SMU, the question is not whether they are good enough, but whether they can sustain this form. The evidence suggests they have a foundation to do so: this was their third straight match with at least 12 blocks, a sign of a repeatable defensive system. But caution is warranted: the career-high and season-best labels for Newsome and Livings are single-match peaks and should not be extrapolated to season-level form. Only the team-level block trend has cross-match support.

More broadly, this result reflects a shifting picture in American collegiate women's volleyball. After SMU beat Pittsburgh, No. 1 Nebraska became the only remaining unbeaten team in the country. The top of collegiate women's volleyball is becoming crowded and upset-prone: a No. 2 can lose to a No. 6. To me, this is a sign of an increasingly competitive field, where the gap among top teams is narrowing. Much of that narrowing comes from schools like SMU investing seriously in women's volleyball programs — something rare a decade ago.

SMU's move into the ACC in 2026 is part of the story too. The conference's expansion has raised the competitive floor, and the result against Pittsburgh is proof that investing in a women's volleyball program can deliver results at the highest level immediately. For women's volleyball generally, this is a positive signal: when more schools invest, the quality of the league rises, and more women players get opportunities to develop.

I write biographies for women who do not know they are legends. Years of that work have taught me that the story of women's sports is rarely told properly. People celebrate an unbeaten streak, a scoring star, a spectacular moment — but seldom analyze the structure behind them. SMU's win over Pittsburgh is a textbook example: look only at the score, and you see an upset. Look at the block, at the middle efficiency, at the five-player attack distribution, and you see a win designed with intent.

There is one small detail I want to keep in my notes. The rematch between the two teams came just four days later. Four days is too short to change a system, but long enough to adjust tactics. Pittsburgh will have to find ways to lighten Babcock's load and open a second attacking option. SMU will have to prepare for an opponent that knows them better and no longer offers surprises. This is an almost instant chess match between two coaching staffs — rare in collegiate volleyball. And it airs on ESPN, meaning the pressure will be far greater.

As someone who has turned 60 and still flies to distant cities to sit courtside taking notes, I see something familiar in this match: young women fighting prejudice and scarce resources to claim the place they deserve. SMU does not have Pittsburgh's history, but it has a well-built team structure and a belief that it can stand level with the top programs. Four wins over top-10 teams are the result of years of patience, not luck.

What is happening in American collegiate women's volleyball is the story of a new tier of programs rising and reclaiming their space. SMU is one of them. Pitt is still there, still strong, but will have to learn to win without leaning on the safety of an unbeaten streak. Nebraska still leads, but must be more vigilant, because behind them many teams are closing in.

The Sunday rematch will be the next turning point. If Pittsburgh wins, they reset their story and prove the loss was a slip. If SMU wins again, they turn the riser narrative into a twice-confirmed fact. For anyone following women's volleyball seriously, both scenarios are worth waiting for — not because of who wins, but because of how they win.

I still have one more set to watch. There are nights I stay up to record every rally, and mornings I ask myself why I still do this at 60. Then a match like this happens, and I understand. Those young women do not chase the ball; they run toward the version of themselves they once dreamed of — and my job is to record it before time erases it.