Phil Jackson has weighed in on Steve Kerr’s recent comments about potentially eliminating the three-point line, and his response adds an important layer to an ongoing debate about the modern NBA’s offensive structure.
Jackson, reacting on X, pointed out that he has been advocating for a structural change to the court for over a decade, specifically suggesting that widening the court would neutralize the advantage of the corner three.
“15 years, I’ve been asking the NBA rules committee to widen the court apron. Corner shot becomes 23.9.”
Jackson’s response comes shortly after Kerr suggested that removing the three-point line entirely might help restore balance to the game. Kerr’s argument is rooted in how analytics have reshaped shot selection across the league. Teams now prioritize shots at the rim and corner threes, creating what he described as a ‘no man’s land’ in the mid-range area.
The data supports that observation. In the 2005-06 season, teams averaged around 16 three-point attempts per game. In the 2025-26 season, that number has risen to 37.0, nearly tripling over two decades. Despite this surge in volume, efficiency has remained relatively stable, hovering around 35-36%.
Jackson’s proposal addresses a specific imbalance within that trend. The corner three, measured at 22 feet, is significantly shorter than above-the-break threes, which extend to 23.9 feet. That discrepancy makes it one of the most efficient shots in basketball, especially when paired with modern spacing and ball movement.
By widening the court, Jackson believes the corner three would align with the standard three-point distance, reducing its impact without eliminating the shot entirely.
The contrast between the two perspectives is notable. Kerr is questioning the existence of the three-point line as a whole, arguing that its presence has narrowed offensive creativity and reduced diversity in shot selection. Jackson, in contrast, is not advocating for removal but for correction. His approach preserves the three-point shot while addressing what he sees as a structural flaw in court dimensions.
The NBA has not indicated any immediate plans to adjust the three-point line or court dimensions, but the conversation is gaining traction. Analysts, former players, and coaches continue to debate whether the current structure promotes optimal competition or limits stylistic diversity.
Suggestions have ranged from eliminating the corner three to introducing new scoring zones, though none have moved beyond discussion.
What is clear is that the evolution of the game has reached a point where its foundational rules are being reconsidered by some of its most influential figures. Kerr’s comments opened the door to that conversation, and Jackson’s response reinforces that the issue is not new but has been building over time. Whether the league chooses to act or not, the debate highlights a growing tension between efficiency and variety in modern basketball.
