SMU Ends Pitt's Unbeaten Start and 58-Match Home Streak in Four Sets: When the Block Tells the Story

In Pittsburgh, when the final ball of the fourth set hit the floor, the silence lasted longer than in any other match this season. The stands did not erupt at once, nor did they fall instantly silent — they faded, as if the crowd needed a few seconds to understand that a 58-match home winning streak had just ended. I have sat long enough in front of such arenas to know that moment never appears in any column of a box score. People light up stadiums to watch the ball; I light them up to see the corners — where a No. 6 team had just toppled the No. 2, and where a No. 2 team, for the first time this season, had to face its own limits.

SMU came into this match as the visiting side, carrying a 14-match ACC winning streak — the longest active run in the conference. Their opponent was Pitt, unbeaten since the start of the season, ranked No. 2 nationally, with a résumé that made anyone bow their head. Before the match, few believed in the script that would unfold. Pitt was built around a single star attacker, and when a team has never been pushed against the ropes, it does not know how it will react until the ropes arrive. I have watched many matches of this kind over my years in the profession, and what I learned is this: teams that win endlessly do not grow weaker on the day they lose — they simply meet, for the first time, an opponent that is not afraid.

On the scoreboard, the result tilted to SMU in four sets, with the third stretching to 38–36. In the ACC, SMU moved to 5–0, while Pitt took its first conference loss, falling to 4–1. This was not an out-of-conference friendly. It was a result with weight, reshaping the conference standings and directly affecting the national tournament résumé at season's end.

SMU won at the net. That is the shortest sentence one can say about this match, and also the most complete. The block count of 12.5–6 tilted entirely toward the visitors, and it marked the third consecutive match in which SMU recorded at least 12 team blocks. That number matters not because it is large, but because it repeats. One good blocking night can be luck; three in a row is a system. In volleyball, the block is not only defense — it reshapes the entire tempo of a match, forcing opponents to attack from harder positions and turning every rally into a contest of wits.

Behind that net stood an attack so distributed it was hard to read. Five SMU players reached double-digit points: Natalia Newsome 17, Suli Davis 17, Jadyn Livings 13, Placide 10, and Favor Anyanwu 10. Their middle blockers scored 27 kills on 47 swings for a .447 clip — an excellent figure for a four-set match. Newsome alone hit .519, a career high. Livings, an outside hitter, hit .435, her best of the season. When a team has five attacking options all reaching double digits, the opposing block has nowhere left to load up.

Anyanwu came close to a perfect double-double with 10 kills and 9 blocks. Libero Victoria Harris recorded 20 digs and 4 aces — her second career 20-dig match, while tying her career high in aces. This is the kind of contribution television rarely gives enough airtime, yet it is the foundation of everything above it. A libero who defends well and serves with pressure is a dual weapon many viewers quietly overlook.

Babcock must be addressed. Olivia Babcock scored 25 kills, an enormous figure. But look closer: those 25 kills account for nearly half a team's attacking output across four sets. For a team that lost the net 6–12.5, funneling the ball to one player is dependence, not strength. The opponent only needs to read the direction of the ball, and SMU read it. Babcock remains a rare asset — she holds program records for career kills and aces — but her very greatness exposed the collective flaw: when a single attacking option is taken away, a team needs a second plan, and Pitt did not show one.

Then came the third set. 38–36. Sets that stretch this long are not decided by pure technique, but by nerve, by bench depth, and by composure at scores where both sides know they cannot err. The NCAA rule — 25-point sets, win by two, no cap — created this very moment. A 38–36 set is a test of endurance and character, where whichever team keeps a cool head on the final rally wins. SMU kept it.

But wait. There is another reading that I believe is truer, and it does not belong to SMU.

Pitt did not lose because it grew weaker. It lost because, for the first time this season, it was forced into a match where the opponent did not collapse under pressure. Head coach Dan Fisher said afterward that his team "needed to experience those emotions" — a remark that sounds like consolation but is in fact a tactical confession. A team unbeaten across 58 home matches gradually forgets what it feels like to be cornered. When you win endlessly inside a comfort zone, you do not build the muscle for life-or-death points. This is a gap in endurance, not a gap in talent. And it is the most dangerous kind of gap, because it does not surface in the box score until the match is already decided.

This leads me to a broader observation. US collegiate women's volleyball is entering a phase in which the top is no longer a safe haven. Nebraska, the No. 1 team, is now the only remaining unbeaten side — meaning the entire "invincible" pressure has converged on one place. Behind them, SMU has four top-10 wins this season, over teams ranked No. 3, No. 8, No. 9, and now No. 2. This is no longer the fairy tale of a single match. It is the mark of a program that has matured, built over many seasons rather than one night.

When SMU won, people called it a shock. I do not think so. A team with a 14-match winning streak in one of the strongest conferences in the country, with four wins over top-10 opponents, is not a spoiler. They are a genuine contender. What the media calls a "surprise" is often merely the consequence of our not looking long enough at what is being built quietly. SMU's rise also reflects a larger trend: joining the ACC raised their competitive ceiling, bringing a harder schedule and the chance to be tested against the strongest teams. When a program invests in the right direction, results arrive not as a lightning bolt, but as water rising slowly before it breaks the bank.

This is also the moment to speak of the flow of talent. Peak performances in the NCAA are the primary feeder for the emerging US professional leagues — LOVB and PVF — and for the national team. For Davis, a sophomore, 17 kills and 9 digs in a big match is a sign that SMU has many years to contend at the top. For Babcock, every match reinforces the standing of one of the most watched attackers in collegiate volleyball.

The rematch comes as soon as Sunday, October 11, broadcast on ESPN. Only four days between two meetings — too short to change the essence, but long enough for both coaching staffs to adjust. Pitt will have to find a way to spread its attack and reduce the load on Babcock, while SMU will have to prove that 12.5 blocks was not a one-night surge. Having stood between the court and the stands long enough, I know a record never belongs to one person alone — it belongs to those who helped keep it, and to those who came to end it.

The match is over, but the arena still echoes inside me like a private space. A 58-match unbeaten run is a beautiful number, but what is more memorable is how a No. 6 team walked into the home of the No. 2 and did not tremble. Volleyball, in the end, is not measured by long streaks, but by the moments when a group understands each other well enough to do what no one thought they could. When the lights go out and the stands are empty, what remains is not the score, but the question: will Pitt turn this loss into strength, and will SMU prove that tonight was not its only peak?