Week 3 Power 10: Penn State Drops Out, and the Cost of a Ranking That Never Published the Score

On September 21, Penn State — ranked No. 9 — lost 3-1 to Tennessee, ranked No. 16. The recap released by Penn State itself blamed "unforced errors." No error count. No set scores. No attacking efficiency. Just a diagnostic label pinned to a defeat, and a few days later, an updated ranking. I have spent years cross-checking sports reports against original records, and I have learned one thing: when a defeat is explained by a label instead of a number, it is time to open the books.

To read this story correctly, two things must be separated that are usually merged into one. The "Power 10" on NCAA.com is a ranking curated by a single analyst — Michella Chester. It is not a coaches' poll, it is not the RPI, and it has no authority to decide NCAA Tournament berths. That authority belongs to the selection committee, based on RPI and expert evaluation. The Power 10 is a media barometer, not a selection mechanism.

Week 3 of the NCAA women's season falls in the non-conference window — matches outside the conference schedule, where a team's resume begins to accumulate before the grind of league play begins. This is the point of maximum ranking volatility, because the data sample is still thin. One result can shift perception. And that is exactly what happened: TCU and Tennessee entered the top 10, and Penn State left it for the first time this season.

Now look at the data the report provides — and the data it withholds. What is there: Gabrielle Nichols, setter, with 38 assists and 12 digs, marking her third double-double of the season. Ava Falduto led the team with 15 digs. Ryla Jones, outside hitter, was named but given no stat line. What is missing: set scores, serving errors, attacking errors, perfect-pass rate, and the entire Tennessee stat sheet — the team just declared to have "moved inside the sport's top tier."

This is the kind of selective stat disclosure I have seen in many program releases after a loss. It is not technically wrong, but it is deliberate. A team that loses while still producing standout individual lines will see its recap tell a story about individuals, not a story about the system. The problem is this: with no error count and no set scores — the only two data points that could verify the "unforced errors" thesis — the entire conclusion about the match stands on thin air.

I am not denying the loss. A 3-1 result between a No. 9 team and a No. 16 team is a fact. But a top-10 side losing because it lost execution discipline is entirely different from being tactically overmatched. Nichols's line — 38 assists plus 12 digs — together with Falduto's 15 digs shows Penn State generated significant defensive volume. Heavy defensive volume often correlates with extended rallies, and in a losing effort it also often correlates with inefficient conversion of transition opportunities. That is a plausible hypothesis. It is not a conclusion. The difference between those two things is my entire profession.

And here is the key point I want you to hold onto: the Power 10 is an editorial ranking, so its week-to-week volatility is structurally higher than the AVCA Coaches Poll or the RPI. A single result can move a team in or out by design, not by accumulated performance. Which means: Penn State leaving the top 10 is a perception event, not a competitive one.

This is where I have to state plainly what most ranking reports avoid. An editorial ranking does not select teams for the tournament. The selection committee does. Confusing the two systems is a category error, and it causes fans to misread the significance of a September match.

The "top tier" label for Tennessee has the same problem. It rests on a single win. There is no multi-match resume, no performance data against other ranked opponents within this report. A resume-building win at the right moment is a signal — but an unconfirmed one. Conversely, reading Penn State as being "in decline" is equally unsupported by the report's own data. This was the team's first loss to a ranked opponent this season, and its first absence from the Power 10 — meaning it had been present consistently before. One defeat does not erase a foundation.

Based on my experience covering NCAA women's matches, early-season "signature win" narratives tend to fade very quickly once conference play reveals true levels. The September 21 win retains resume value precisely because it fell inside the non-conference window — the ideal timing to bank a quality win before league play begins. But that value belongs to the RPI, not to the Power 10.

What stands out most to me in this entire report is not the ranking. It is the silence. A university issued a diagnosis of its own defeat but published no number to prove that diagnosis. The winner was described with a tier declaration but no accompanying data. Behind every stat line is a set score no one is willing to publish.

So this week, instead of asking "Is Penn State declining?" or "Does Tennessee deserve it?", ask the right question. What were the set scores on September 21 — a close loss or a rout? Where were the errors concentrated — serving, attacking, or reception? When Weeks 4 and 5 publish a new Power 10, do Tennessee and TCU stay in? When conference play opens, does Penn State return to the top 10?

NCAA women's volleyball is not played on an editorial ranking. It is played in gymnasiums, where the RPI is calculated and the selection committee convenes in December. A ranking can change places every week. A tournament berth cannot. Anyone who reads that distinction correctly will not be swept up by a storm of opinion built from a September match whose score no one has published.