Consider this: spell point systems assume that you have a pool of spell points, which you spend to cast spells. When you are out of spell points, you can't cast any more spells. Pretend, though, that there are two kinds of magic, say Divine and Arcane, and each has its own independent pool (I played a version of D&D once that had "Piety Points" and "Magical Conductivity points".) That's still a spell-point system, right? It just has more detail.
Now pretend that you have six kinds of magic instead of two, with six pools of spell points. You cannot trade points across pools, but you can have access to all six pools, and be able to cast spells of each of the six types.
Let's call those six spell pools ... "Level 1 Spells", "Level 2 Spells", and so on. That is exactly what is happening.
Perhaps it's the added complexity of having six pools of points that bothers the non-Vancian advocates. However, I've seen many single-pool spell-point systems that do not keep the spell costs simple, but instead have unique costs for each spell. This is what happens in the Fantasy Trip magic system, or its descendant, GURPS Magic. You have to look up each spell to find out what the spell point cost is. It's not a flat cost based on spell level, such as you see in the Microlite 20 spell point system. That, in my experience, is way more complicated than Vancian magic. So I really don't see why the non-Vancian proponents object so vehemently to what is, in essence, just another spell point system.