NCAA Women's Volleyball Week 3 Power 10: Tennessee and TCU Enter Top 10, Penn State Drops Out

On September 21, at a college arena in the United States, the Penn State women's volleyball team walked onto the court against Tennessee as the No. 9 team in the country. When the final whistle sounded, the score read 3-1 in favor of the No. 16 side. Penn State's own recap blamed the loss with two words: unforced errors. Gabrielle Nichols, the starting setter, closed the match with 38 assists and 12 digs — her third double-double of the season. Ava Falduto led the team with 15 digs. A setter doing both jobs, a defender carrying the backcourt, and a loss left behind. Stadiums never fall silent; only our hearts stop counting the beat.

This match belongs to the US collegiate ecosystem — NCAA Division I women's volleyball. There, time does not run on a four-year Olympic cycle but on a fall season stretching from late August to December, ending in a 64-team championship. Week 3 is the non-conference phase, when teams are still testing lineups, banking resumes, and letting rankings swing hardest. A single loss can push a team out of the leading group. A single win can pull another in.

The ranking in question is the Power 10, published weekly by NCAA.com. The Power 10 is an editorial ranking, hand-picked by one analyst — Michella Chester. It does not determine championship access or seeding. That authority rests with the NCAA selection committee, which uses the RPI and the eye test. When Penn State leaves the Power 10, it is an event of perception, not of competitive record.

The data the report leaves behind — and what it omits — deserves close reading. Nichols had 38 assists and 12 digs. Falduto had 15 digs. But we have no set scores, no service-error count, no attack-error count, no hitting efficiency, no blocking rate, no perfect-pass rate. And we have not a single statistical line for Tennessee. This is a one-sided dataset, selected to tell the story of a losing team that still had individuals shine. What stands out most is that the two facts needed to verify the unforced-errors thesis are missing: the set scores and the specific error count. Without them, we cannot know whether this was a match balanced to the last point or a comprehensive defeat. And so we cannot know whether Tennessee truly belongs in the top tier.

Based on my experience following matches, a setter logging 12 digs and finishing second on the team in that category is a telling sign. It may mean the backcourt is scrambling well, or it may mean too many balls are reaching the setter in transition. When a team loses while its setter still posts a double-double, I usually ask whether those balls were converted into points. Without hitting efficiency, that question stays open.

What is notable is how the events fit together. TCU and Tennessee entered the top 10 at the same time. Penn State exited for the first time this season. Tennessee won and was described as now being inside the sport's top tier. Penn State suffered its first ranked loss of the year. This is a structural reshuffle, not a single-team anomaly. But that structure is built on the foundation of one match.

I walked into an accidental interview but left with a whole generation that had never been heard. I wrote that line about Chinese women's football, but it holds here too. Behind the ranking are specific people. Nichols, Falduto, and Ryla Jones — named in the report yet given no statistical line. A young woman being named but not counted is a small detail, yet it says something about how women's sports data is often handled: mentioned as a name, not measured as a number.

And here is the counterintuitive angle. Both circulating judgments rest on a sample far too small. For Penn State, the decline conclusion has no basis in the report's own data. A No. 9 team losing to a No. 16 team in Week 3, still testing its lineup, is far more likely a slip in execution discipline than a system crisis. For Tennessee, the top-tier conclusion is just as fragile. In US college women's volleyball, early-season signature wins tend to fade quickly once conference play begins and reveals true levels. Today's supposed leap in class may become a footnote by November.

There is a category confusion worth naming. The Power 10 does not lead to the championship; the RPI and the selection committee do. Penn State's real risk lies in a resume dented within the RPI — the thing with real weight in December. A non-conference loss to a ranked opponent still leaves a mark. But that mark is measured in numbers, not in feeling.

Tennessee's risk is the inverse. A signature win brings attention — and expectation. For a rising program, that attention has recruiting value: high-school athletes see their school's name on a ranking, and a door opens. This is probably the most durable transmission channel in the whole story — a signal in the recruiting market, one that compounds over seasons rather than erupting in a single week.

I write biographies for women who do not know they are legends. And I learned that time does not stand still; only people choose to stop. The Week 3 ranking will soon be overwritten by Week 4. The match of September 21 will sink into the season's history. What remains is the question every women's sports ranking forces us to ask: what are we measuring — a week, or a career? If one match is enough to define a team, then what is undervalued is not Tennessee or Penn State, but the sport itself.