An increasing number of drivers and NASCAR officials, particularly sanctioning body chairman Bill France Jr., are calling for a potentially significant change in the current Winston Cup points system, perhaps as early as next season.

The major argument being cited is that race winners aren't getting their due when it comes to earning points. The more wins you have, the more points you should get, the logic goes.

Oddly, there was little talk of change last season when Matt Kenseth was streaking to a series-leading five wins. Yet, because of inconsistency -- which has definitely not been the case for Kenseth in 2003 -- the Wisconsin native finished only eighth in the standings.

Now, because Kenseth has built a substantial lead with just one race win (Tony Stewart won three en route to his 2002 championship) while Ryan Newman (five wins) and Kurt Busch (three) are the leading multiple race winners thus far this season, a system that was fine last season is suddenly broken and needs to be fixed.

Comparing Points Systems

Under Jerry Bonkowski's points system, consistency would still be given its just due, but wins would receive the added significance they are long overdue. Current Winston Cup top-10: 1. Matt Kenseth, 3,432 points 2. Dale Earnhardt Jr., 3,103 3. Jeff Gordon, 2,971 4. Kevin Harvick, 2,953 5. Michael Waltrip, 2,923 6. Jimmie Johnson, 2,908 7. Bobby Labonte, 2,825 8. Ryan Newman, 2,816 9. Kurt Busch, 2,810 10. Robby Gordon, 2,777 If Bonkowski's plan were in effect: 1. Matt Kenseth, 897 points 2. Dale Earnhardt Jr., 804 3. Jeff Gordon, 769 4. Kevin Harvick, 756 5. Jimmie Johnson, 751 6. Ryan Newman, 750 7. Michael Waltrip, 746 8. Bobby Labonte, 714 9. Kurt Busch, 711 10. Robby Gordon, 687

Ironically, Newman likes the current system the way it is. He told ESPN.com last week that the only slight modification he'd make is to award more points to the pole winner in each race. Everything else should stay the way it is, Newman said.

Likewise, Kenseth told ESPN.com the same thing last month, that there's no need to fix the system because it isn't broken in his eyes.

But if Bill France Jr. says change needs to be made, you can pretty much bet that's exactly what we'll see when the 2004 season dawns.

Allow me to throw my two cents in. I've always believed that occasionally unwieldy points systems -- like the one we've had in Winston Cup since 1975 -- are just too complicated for their own good. To me, the best way to judge a driver's proficiency during the course of a season is usually the simplest way: using basic addition and subtraction. I've also found that once you get into triple digits, some people need to break out their calculators or adding machines just to keep up.

That's why, after trying to formulate several different methods over the last week and trying to be as fair as possible to all drivers, I am proposing an extremely simplistic points standing system. It's so simple that even the most mathematically challenged fans will be able to keep track of where their favorite driver is from week to week, and not have to look it up on the Internet or wait until they pick up tomorrow's newspaper.

The concept is simple: a sliding scale that would award 43 points for each win to coincide with the usual 43-car field, 42 points for second-place, 41 for third, etc., ending with one point for the last-place finisher each week.

I'd also sweeten the pie with 10 extra points for each win, five extra points for winning the pole, and three points for each driver who leads a lap in a race.

However, there would be one significant difference from the current system: I would also award five extra points to the driver who leads the most laps in a race, but only if he's not the eventual race winner. For example, let's go back two weeks to Watkins Glen, N.Y., the most recent example of a driver (Robby Gordon) both winning the race and leading the most laps. Under my system, Gordon would have earned the 10 bonus points for winning the race, but 30th-place finisher Greg Biffle would have taken home the five extra bonus points for leading the most laps (before misfortune befell him and the team) and not winning the race.

(As a more equitable clarifier, if a non-winning driver earns five points for leading the most laps, he would not earn the additional three points that would go to other drivers that lead a lap. However, a winning driver who does not lead the most laps would get the three points for leading a lap in the event).

My logic is thus: While you definitely want to give the eventual winner an added bonus for taking the checkered flag, you also definitely don't want to statistically weigh things down too much to one side. By giving the non-winning lap leader the bonus, it will theoretically make going for the lead in each race even more competitive than it already is. At the same time, overall consistency like Kenseth has shown this season, as well as the importance of finishing in the top-five and top-10, will continue to be tantamount in the overall rankings.

I've gone through the current Winston Cup top-10 and changed the points system to reflect my proposed scoring structure (see accompanying chart). You might be a bit surprised at the end results.

For after all the talk about how the standings might be radically altered under a new system -- and I'm certainly not saying my proposed structure is the best alternative, by any means -- only four of the current top-10 drivers would have changed positions under the new structure. The driver that would benefit the most -- obviously -- would be Newman, who would move from eighth in the current system to sixth under my proposal, while Jimmie Johnson would move from sixth to fifth. Headed downward would be Michael Waltrip from fifth to seventh, and Bobby Labonte from seventh to eighth.

The rest of my proposed top-10 is the same as the actual current top-10, although the points race would statistically get considerably tighter between No. 4 Harvick and No. 7 Waltrip (just 10 points would separate the four drivers in that pack).

So, could it be that even if wins are weighted more heavily under a new structure, the end result might still be the same, for the most part, with a few minor changes in the current standings? Possibly so. Therefore, I ask, do we reallyneed to change the current points structure, after all? Would it prove anything? Maybe to simplify things statistically, yes, but in my mind, the answer is still a definitive 'no.'

Have your own thoughts on the NASCAR points system? Know of any other alternatives? Send an e-mail to Jerry Bonkowski. He can be reached at Motorsportwriter@MSN.com.