As a network, NBC certainly has its troubles, but doing a good job at airing the Olympics appears not to be one of them.

While there are complaints about tape delays and ad clutter, media buyers generally think the network is giving the viewing public two weeks of solid coverage of the Winter Olympics in Vancouver.

That’s the take-away from a Media Life survey that ran earlier this week in which readers were asked to rate the network’s coverage of the Games after the first week.

Some 41 percent rated the coverage as good, agreeing with this statement: “I'm satisfied with what I've seen, though there hasn't been anything outstanding so far.”

And 26 percent rated the coverage as excellent, agreeing with this statement: “The announcers are great and they pack lots of action into the primetime windows.”

But the remaining respondents, just under 34 percent, were not impressed and rated the coverage poor, agreeing with this statement: “I'm baffled by the tape delays, lack of live online streaming of big events, and failure to show anything live on the West Coast.”

Of course, NBC was helped in no small part by the stellar performance of America’s athletes, and in the minds of media buyers that’s the big story to come out of these Games.

Asked to name the big story of Vancouver, 49 percent chose the U.S.’s performance, agreeing with this statement: “They have provided the country a badly needed inspiration after a year of terrible economic news.”

That came well ahead of the next three choices, the death of the Georgian luger (19.8 percent), the huge ratings NBC has seen for these Games (17.4 percent) and the disorganization of the Games (11.6 percent).

Most readers were not surprised by the ratings the Games generated in the first week, with 70 percent agreeing with this statement: “Sports have done very well the past year because people love to pull together to root for something positive in a crisis, and the Olympics are the ultimate in patriotic sports.”

The 30 percent who were surprised by the ratings agreed with this statement: “After the disappointing 2006 results, I thought for sure the Winter Games would slump further.”

Buyers did less well on the question of how the Games would do against "American Idol" in their second week, after beating the reality show in week one, breaking that show's six-year streak as the No. 1 show on every night it has aired.

Asked whether the Games would beat “Idol” this Tuesday night, 52 percent figured they would. In fact, “Idol” came back to beat the Games, and rather handily.

No surprise then that buyers ranked Fox tops in counter-programming against the games, at 42 percent. CBS was second at 29 percent, and ABC was third at 17 percent.

And the athlete poised to be the face of the Games after the first week?

Apolo Ohno at 32 percent, closely followed by Lindsey Vonn at 28 percent. Third, at 18 percent, was Shaun White, and fourth was Bode Miller at 16 percent. Evan Lysacek drew 6 percent of the vote.

But for all that things that have gone well for NBC during the Games, more media buyers than not believe the Games won’t help the network all that much over the course of the season.

Just over half, 54 percent, agreed with this statement: “The Olympics don't give networks permanent boosts, we've seen that time and again.”

Those who thought they would agreed with this statement: “The added exposure for ‘Parenthood’ and ‘The Marriage Ref’ promos should help those shows to good starts, and I think its 10 p.m. schedule is stronger now.”

Of the new shows NBC is promoting during the Games, readers are most anticipating "Parenthood,” at 54 percent. Next came "The Marriage Ref” at 30 percent.

For all the hoopla over Jay Leno returning to his old seat as host of the “Tonight” show, media buyers don’t seem all that interested. "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” got just 13 percent of the vote.

Finally, for whatever failings there were on NBC’s part, most media buyers pretty strongly believe that the Games are a good buy for advertisers.

In an open-ended question, Media Life asked readers: Do you think the Olympics represent a good buy for certain clients? Which ones? What did you advise your clients on the Games?

Those questions drew mostly positive responses.

Wrote one respondent: “Yep, I think there is a 'feel good vibe' to these games that is despite the problems and large corporate brands look good when they sincerely partner with the games to promote/praise the athletes more than themselves.”

And another: “Absolutely. The Olympics gets viewers excited and feeling good - that is then imposed on those associated (advertising within) with the Olympics. There aren't many other platforms that can do this. It's hard to find a client that it wouldn't be good for.”

And yet another: “Yes. I suggested that our large multi-product client would get a halo boost from the exposure. It's been a success and my client is delighted!!

"Is it a no brainer buy for everyone? No.”

Another respondent seconded that last thought, writing: “They are a great way to reach a large and diverse audience. For my clients though, the Olympics are too broad an audience and I advised them to stick with more targeted ads.”

But some readers did opine that, no, the Games aren’t worth the expense.

As one put it, “Like all major events, Super Bowl, Oscars, etc., clients overpay for the exposure they really get. The only real plus seems to be ancillary talk and promotion that comes along with the primary buy."