Week 3 NCAA Women's Volleyball Power 10: Tennessee Upsets Penn State and the Early Reshuffle of US College Volleyball

When the NCAA.com Power 10 rankings were updated in the third week of the US women's college volleyball season, there was one detail I had noted in my notebook for years: early-season shifts often tell a different story from what the public wants to believe. On September 21, Penn State — the No. 9 team in the country — lost 3-1 to Tennessee on their home court. That was not a simple defeat. It was the moment when a long-established elite program in American women's volleyball was beaten by a No. 16 opponent, and immediately, the door to the Top 10 slammed shut. I have followed US women's college volleyball for eight years, from matches in Japan to international tournaments, and what caught my attention here was not the result of one match. What caught my attention was how a single loss can reshape the entire perceptual hierarchy of a season. When TCU and Tennessee both entered the Top 10 while Penn State was pushed out, that was a sign of an early restructuring — a phenomenon I have observed many times in women's sports seasons, where the pressure to maintain status often exceeds the pressure to achieve it. Let's start with the most important number. Penn State lost 3-1, according to the school's own athletics program. Notably, no set scores were disclosed in the original report. In my profession of writing about volleyball, I learned one principle: when someone tells you about a loss without telling you the set scores, that is when you need to investigate yourself. Because set scores distinguish a narrow defeat — where the team maintained its system — from a comprehensive defeat, where the system collapsed. And without set scores, we cannot know whether Tennessee truly deserves its Top 10 position or simply benefited from timing. What we do know for certain is that Penn State described its own defeat with the phrase "unforced errors" — errors not forced by the opponent. In any team's match record, when the coaching staff or communications department uses this term, it typically refers to two specific types of errors: serving errors and attacking errors at critical moments. These are errors the team inflicts on itself, not caused by the opponent playing exceptionally well. In other words, Penn State lost not because Tennessee was too strong, but because they could not control their own fundamental plays. I have witnessed this many times in my career covering women's volleyball. In 2026, when I stood in the corridor watching the Kansai Queen Cup semifinal between INAC Kobe Leonessa and Urawa Red Diamonds Ladies, I noted that strong teams often do not lose because the opponent plays better tactically. They lose because of small errors — a failed serve at a decisive moment, an attack that goes out while leading, a moment of lost focus. That is the gap between a good team and a great team. And in the third week of the season, when teams are still assembling their lineups, that gap is even more exposed. Looking at the individual statistics Penn State released, one detail made me pause. Gabrielle Nichols, the team's setter, recorded 38 assists and 12 digs — her third double-double of the season. This means Nichols was not only the offensive distributor but also a key part of the defensive system. In modern volleyball, when your setter has to participate heavily in defense, it often signals two things: either the team's defensive system is struggling, or rallies are extending too long and the team is scrambling in transition. Neither is a positive sign for a Top 10 team. Ava Falduto led the team with 15 digs — an impressive number, but when placed next to Nichols's stat line, it reveals a clearer picture. Penn State generated significant defensive volume, but in a loss, that often means they missed many attacking conversion opportunities. You cannot dig continuously if you are not letting the opponent attack continuously. And you cannot let the opponent attack continuously if your passing and attacking system is not effective at ending rallies early. There is one more detail I want to mention, though it may seem minor: Ryla Jones, one of Penn State's outside hitters, was mentioned in the original article but had no statistical line attached. In my profession, a starting hitter being named without statistics is a signal. It could mean she did not play prominently, or it could mean the school's communications department chose not to release her stats for some reason. But whatever the reason, the absence of information about a starting hitter in a loss is something I always note and track in subsequent matches. More important than all these numbers is the context of Week 3. In the NCAA women's college volleyball system, the third week of the season is typically the end of the non-conference schedule. This is the period when teams are experimenting with lineups, building chemistry, and most importantly, accumulating their résumé before entering conference play. A win against a ranked team during this period has special value — it is not just a win, it is a "resume-building win." And that is exactly what Tennessee achieved. The win over Penn State not only helped them overcome a higher-ranked opponent; it also put them into the Power 10 — a ranking curated by Michella Chester, an NCAA.com analyst. The important thing to understand here is that the Power 10 is not an official NCAA ranking. It does not determine NCAA Tournament participation in December. It does not affect seeding. It is merely a weekly perception barometer — a way for the public and fans to follow the season's story. This is the point I always remind myself and my readers: do not confuse an editorial ranking with a selection mechanism. The Power 10 is more like a headline than a committee decision. It can change weekly, and in fact, it is designed to change weekly — because that is how it generates attention and maintains fan interest. Meanwhile, NCAA Tournament access and seeding are determined by the selection committee based on RPI (Rating Percentage Index) and overall assessment of head-to-head results. This distinction is crucial. A team can drop out of the Power 10 and still have a successful season. Conversely, a team can top the Power 10 but not get a good seed if their RPI profile is not strong enough. Tennessee earned a valuable win over Penn State — that is a fact and it will be recorded in their résumé. But their inclusion in the Power 10 Top 10 is only a perception event, not an access event. Looking more broadly, the simultaneous appearance of TCU and Tennessee in this week's Top 10 suggests something about the structure of this season. In recent years, US women's college volleyball has witnessed the rise of programs outside the traditional elite. TCU, from the Big 12, and Tennessee, from the SEC, represent a new wave of programs investing heavily in women's volleyball. Meanwhile, Penn State — a Big Ten team, a conference considered the deepest and most competitive in US women's college volleyball — remains a force, but this loss shows they are no longer the invincible team of the past. Interestingly, Penn State had been in the Power 10 all season until this week. This is their first absence this season. And the loss to Tennessee is their first defeat to a ranked opponent this year. These are two important facts that the original article mentioned but may not have emphasized adequately. They show that Penn State is not a declining program. They are a strong team experiencing a perception correction — a moment any team can encounter in a long season. In US women's college volleyball, a season runs from August to December, with dozens of matches. A loss in Week 3, however painful, does not define a season. What defines a season is how a team responds after that loss — in conference matches, in difficult road trips, in decisive matches at the end of the season. Penn State has enough time and enough quality to turn things around. But there is one aspect I always remain cautious about when following early-season rankings: the domino effect of perception. When a team drops out of the Top 10, people begin to view them through a different lens. Each subsequent loss is read as evidence of decline. Each win is read as recovery. Meanwhile, a team newly entering the Top 10 — like Tennessee — faces the opposite pressure: each loss is read as disappointment, each win as confirmation. This is the psychology of rankings, and it affects both players and fans. I have witnessed this over many years covering women's sports. The pressure of being ranked high can be heavier than the pressure of not being ranked. Because when you have nothing to lose, you play with freedom. When you have a position to protect, every mistake carries its weight. That is why early-season upsets happen — and why they often do not last. So what is really happening here? In my assessment, there are three layers of meaning in this event. The first layer is the pure sports story: a lower-ranked team beats a higher-ranked team, and that is reflected in the rankings. This is a story anyone can read and understand. The second layer is the season-structure story: Week 3 is when rankings have the highest volatility, because teams do not yet have enough data for accurate assessment. A Week 3 loss can cause a large perceptual shift, but it does not carry the same weight as a November loss. This is what I always remind myself when writing about early-season rankings: look at the trend, not the snapshot. The third layer — and this is the one I think is least noticed — is the story of the value of US women's college volleyball as a competitive environment. When TCU and Tennessee can compete with Penn State, when programs outside the traditional elite can earn meaningful wins, that is a sign of a system growing in depth. In a women's sports system I have followed, competition from multiple programs is a sign of health. It means talent is distributed more broadly, that more young players have opportunities to compete at the highest level, that the league is not dominated by a few powers. However, I must also acknowledge a limitation in my analysis: I do not have enough data to assess whether Tennessee truly belongs in the Top 10. There are no set scores, no attacking efficiency data, no perfect-pass rates. What I have is only the final result and a few individual stat lines from Penn State. This is a thin dataset, and I do not want to build large conclusions on such a thin foundation. What I can say with confidence is: the Power 10 shift this week reflects a reality that this year's US women's college volleyball season is unfolding with more variables than previous years. Teams like TCU and Tennessee are investing in women's volleyball, attracting talent, and building programs capable of competing. Penn State remains one of the top programs in American women's volleyball, but they are no longer a team opponents fear before stepping onto the court. In the broader context of women's sports, this is a trend I follow with particular interest. The rise of new programs in US women's college volleyball reflects something larger about women's sports in general: investment in infrastructure, coaching, and players is producing measurable results. When Tennessee can beat Penn State, that is not just a sports result. It is a signal that investing in women's sports — seriously, sustainably — is creating change. But I also do not want to romanticize excessively. In women's sports in general and US women's college volleyball in particular, there is still a large gap between well-funded programs and programs struggling to maintain competitiveness. One Tennessee win over Penn State does not eliminate that gap. It only shows that the gap can be narrowed with enough determination and resources. What I will track in the coming weeks is how Tennessee and TCU maintain their Power 10 positions. If they continue winning against ranked opponents, their rise narrative will have a firmer foundation. If they lose in conference play, we will know that Week 3 was just a moment. And of course, I will track Penn State — not to see whether they return to the Power 10, but to see whether they can transform this loss into motivation for the rest of the season. In my tracking notebook, I added a line for this week: "When rankings change, do not ask who is at the top. Ask who is climbing, and who is trying to hold position." Because in women's sports, the real story is not in the numbers on the ranking. It is in what teams do after the ranking changes. And that is the story I will continue to follow, match by match, until the season ends in December.