You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
@JaseZiv How do you feel about leaving the tier field as is for Cups (here)?
This way we can use "1st", "2nd", "3rd" to differentiate UEFA cups, for example (i.e. Champions League, Europa, Conference). I suppose we can differentiate between UEFA cups just with Competition.Name as well, but my idea is that I'd have UEFA_match_results.rds in the match_results release with the tier field as non-NA, and then have the tier field available when joining UEFA match results with other data sets.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
here would be the affected rows in all_competitions.csv
# A tibble: 7 × 6
competition_type competition_name governing_body country gender tier
<chr> <chr> <chr> <chr> <chr> <chr>
1 Club International Cups Copa Libertadores de América CONMEBOL NA M 1st
2 Club International Cups Copa Sudamericana CONMEBOL NA M 2nd
3 Club International Cups UEFA Champions League UEFA NA M 1st
4 Club International Cups UEFA Europa League UEFA NA M 2nd
5 Club International Cups UEFA Europa Conference League UEFA NA M 3rd
6 Club International Cups UEFA Women's Champions League UEFA NA F 1st
7 Domestic Cups Coupe de la Ligue NA FRA M 1st
@JaseZiv How do you feel about leaving the
tier
field as is for Cups (here)?This way we can use
"1st"
,"2nd"
,"3rd"
to differentiate UEFA cups, for example (i.e. Champions League, Europa, Conference). I suppose we can differentiate between UEFA cups just withCompetition.Name
as well, but my idea is that I'd haveUEFA_match_results.rds
in thematch_results
release with thetier
field as non-NA
, and then have thetier
field available when joining UEFA match results with other data sets.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: