DETROIT — Amid excitement about the upcoming Final Four at Ford Field, the hockey world is more focused on its turn.

The 2010 Frozen Four will take place at Ford Field, and CCHA Commissioner Tom Anastos discussed plans for it at a brunch this afternoon.

Anastos displayed a mock-up rendering of available seating and the location of the ice sheet. Though he said that he would see how the basketball court is set up and how seating is arranged for the Final Four, Anastos said essentially that plans have been in the works for many months and the design is pretty much set. A basketball court floor is normally raised so more fans can look up to the action, but ice is normally located on the ground, since fans look down to see puck movement.

The ice will be placed from about center field to the 18-yard line at both ends with the normal length-width arrangements one would expect. Seats will start right behind the boards and “bleed” into the permanent seating, Anastos said.

A major concern for the Frozen Four — and upcoming Final Four — plan is sightlines. Instead of the approximately 6,600 fans in Yost Ice Arena vying for good seats and angles where they can see the action best, imagine more than 60,000 fans with the same dilemma.

The rows of press boxes and luxury boxes along one side of Ford Field should help the sightlines for that side, and instead of a bowl-shaped stadium, like the outdoor game at Spartan Stadium in 2001, the enclosed shape will help maintain closeness for fans.

“The sighlines in that building are incredible,” Anastos said. “There’s a real intimacy to that building. It’s like a real fieldhouse. We feel that this can work there.

“If we’re hoping to duplicate the slope and sightline of a hockey arena, then we have false expectations because it’s not possible.”

Anastos added that the most appealing parts of the venture is the expansion of affordable seating so more fans can attend and also an excitement for athletes to play in front of large crowds.

More details will be available in the coming months.

RE-PLAYS REVISITED: Michigan fans are all-too-familiar with disputed goals.

They’ve shown up multiple times in crucial series against Ohio State and Notre Dame. The Wolverines came out on the short end in both cases, often because the one overhead camera angle proved inconclusive to reverse a call.

Fans at home saw multiple angles from various cameras, and Michigan coach Red Berenson said after a couple incidents that the league called him to apologize for the bad calls.

But with the one-angle, limited-view review system in place, it’s difficult to overturn a bad judgment call even if a referee realizes he made a bad call in the first place. Even in arenas where there is enough technology to see more angles on a disputed goal, the referees can’t use it, Anastos said.

The sting that Michigan felt after those two losses — that should have been wins with better video replay — wasn’t uncommon. The replay system has caused a great deal of controversy, so it wasn’t surprising that many media members had questions for Anastos and Steve Piotrowski, the CCHA director of officials.

But both said the current economic climate could be a problem for increased replay technology in the immediate future.

“The biggest barrier to video replay, frankly, is the economics of it,” Anastos said. “We knew when we took the step, it wasn’t a perfect system. I don’t think there is perfect system, regardless of all the angles, because you still have the element of human error. As long as we have humans operating them, we will have human error.”

Anastos said that figuring out television scheduling and packaging is the next step to figure out potential technology systems. He said he looked into buying a few boxes that could increase replay angles and alternating them where games are going to be on television.