Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.
Earlier on this very blog, we posed a question about the NBC Olympics coverage that some have deemed an #NBCFail. Would you prefer to watch the Olympics in real time, or do you prefer the tape delay in prime time? We got a passionate response from our readership, and we posted some on the daily Mash-Up on Monday. We also wanted to share a few more of the posts that caught our eye.
The people preferring a live broadcast seemed to have the edge in the comments, and they totally dominated the very unscientific poll at the bottom of the post.
AmerGrill: "I'd rather have it live. The controversies are late, too. Ye Shiwen story just broke in the U.S. and the race was days ago. Even anti-American Drudge who is always on top of news is only now just twisting the story to make America look bad when the committee, coaches and other swimmers have been questioning this race for days. So far for Americans the whole coverage has been a disaster. We aren't in the loop for anything and there are mixed stories coming in from a variety of sources."
Pebbles Flintstone: "The time difference is not that big. In an age when most work break areas have a TV, there is no reason why it can't be streamed live. Folks can watch during their lunch break and/or catch the rest of it in a prime time recap. Based on the fact that most of us work and can't watch TV all day long – most companies put out TVs for big events anyway. It can be worked around. Not rocket science for NBC."
JayL: "U.S. television always wants to make things fit into their TV schedule ... it has even modified the rules of major games in order to better "present" sports on TV. That's why soccer will never make it in the U.S., guess what, the world doesn't work that way ... other countries show games as they should be, LIVE. So, NBC, do what you have to do and show us the games live."
Ed Bark, former longtime TV critic of The Dallas Morning News, writes in an opinion piece that he believes NBC is being "unfairly eviscerated" about its coverage.
He posits that it's impossible to find a perfect watching time for everyone, and blasts an "ever-cranky" blogosphere that is "aflame like the Olympic torch." Many of our readers had a few bones to pick, while others said people need to chill out.
The opening ceremony has left an open wound for some.
Bzybee: "Not airing the opening event live was a disgrace. The endless comments by the commentators and insults to other countries was horrid. The ads and cuts made it all so horrible. Shame on NBC for not allowing Americans to enjoy the opening event live with the rest of the world."
Many readers requested online coverage.
atannerr: "NBC is seriously going to lose money if they keep failing to take opportunities. So many people have said they would have paid decent money to have been able to watch the Olympics online, me for one. I just don't watch TV on a regular basis so it is pointless for me to pay a cable subscription just to watch it for two weeks and then not watch it again for the rest of the year. Oh maybe I would use it for the Super Bowl and Daytona 500 but still not worth it. NBC is alienating the people who are not interested in a ton of TV, just two weeks of it."
Other people critiqued the coverage itself.
BlackBeltAuntie: "NBC is being eviscerated for good reason, and they would do well to heed complaints. Cable TV is sinking rapidly - if I could watch the Olympics with no commentary at all I would do it. These people need to shut their yaps, they have nothing of value to add to the events, so NBC could have saved millions by just sending a camera crew and keeping the expensive mouths at home. This whole thing could easily be a SNL skit about bad Olympics coverage."
Does the BBC do a better job? Readers have varying views.
paul321: "Perhaps NBC should have just contracted to pull the BBC's coverage ... far superior in every regard."
messhy: "Nah ... I'm not even a yank but the BBC coverage has been horrible and all they focus on is Great Britain athletes. NBC is definitely not doing as good a job as they should be but are far superior than the BBC coverage. BBC has received even more complaints then NBC and any other broadcast station ... difference is, BBC will never write an article on it because that would be honest news."
joespivey: "The BBC has not only provided 24 channels to cover all events live (in both HD and SD), but has also provided 24 perfectly functioning online streams of those channels. The BBC has also provided 3D highlights and large 8k resolution screens to watch events on. The BBC had more comprehensive coverage of the Olympics in Athens than NBC have of London – and NBC have double the number of staff to cover it!"
Is something greater afoot?
Lifeslittleironies: "It's a great debate and we're on the edge of a fundamental change in the way people consume media. In the past, it was TV controllers packaging and filtering content for consumption at a time that they determined. Social Media, however, is biased toward real-time, raw, unfiltered and uncontrolled content. Networks are going to have to adapt to an on demand world and stop feeding us the same TV schedules they have given us for the past 40 years or more."
There were other readers who found humor in the situation.
darwinrules: "Oh, the HORROR! Where is the NBC coverage of the Olympic SYNCHRONIZED PUB ELBOW BENDING, BADMINTON, CROQUET, HOT DOG EATING, Olympic MUD WRESTLING, WATER PISTOL...??? Why isn't "Politician mud-slinging" an Olympic sport!?"
What's your take? Share your opinion in the comments area below and in the latest stories on CNN.com. Or sound off on video via CNN iReport.
Compiled by the CNN.com moderation staff. Some comments edited for length or clarity.