“I don’t think they’re on our minds most of the time,” said Andrew Bagnato, a spokesman for the Fiesta Bowl. “They have obviously garnered a lot of attention for their cause, but sometimes it’s difficult to tell exactly who they represent. What is their constituency?”

He declined to comment on the Arizona inquiry but said that the Fiesta Bowl was in compliance with federal tax laws. Spokesmen for the Orange and Sugar Bowls said their bowls were also in compliance.

The details uncovered in the complaints raise issues that go deeper than whether the current system is fair to competitors, said Mr. Owens, who said he did not follow college football. “The facts are pretty compelling that there is something going on there that is not charitable and educational, and it varies from bowl game to bowl game,” he said.

The Orange Bowl Committee released a statement in response to the I.R.S. complaint about the cruise, saying it “believes it is important to meet with its key stakeholders to communicate and advocate our business focus.”

Bill Hancock, the executive director of the B.C.S., questioned Playoff PAC’s aggressive style. Mr. Hancock has been the target of a handful of advertisements the PAC placed on YouTube, including one that compared him to Saddam Hussein’s spokesman during the Iraq war.

“I don’t think those kind of tactics belong in college football,” he said. “All of us taxpayers are forced to deal with those tactics every two years at election time, and I find them distasteful.”

Mr. Sanderson acknowledged that the group had not raised much money, and said it was set up as a political action committee to ensure flexibility to support candidates who favor a college football playoff. The group has produced some advertisements that Mr. Sanderson said received limited airtime, but he said their priority was completing projects like the I.R.S. complaint. “We don’t need a lot of money because we’re able to attract professional help,” he said.