Why would anyone declare at 0 for 0 when they only require 1 run to win and they've got 10 wickets standing?
Contriving a tie is exceptionally difficult to do. Let's suppose that team A scores 500 all out in their first innings. Team B also scores 500 all out. As it's obviously a good batting wicket and, with 1000 runs scored, time likely to be getting on, a draw would seem to be the most likely result. However you could hardly expect the captain of Team A to agree to a tie (instead of a draw) at that point; he's got to try for some quick runs and then hope that (with the wicket starting to break up) he can bowl out team B cheaply. So he declares his second innings closed at 250 for 7, with 2 sessions remaining. The chances of team B scoring 250 in 2 sessions is so low that contriving a tie (after team A had failed to pick up any wickets in the first of those sessions) would be extremely difficult. Even if team A deliberately bowled badly, so that team B were on 249 for 7 with 1 delivery left to get the run required for a tie, their captain would have to trust that:
(a) the batsman didn't simply ignore any agreement to get a single, and hit a boundary instead ; or
(b) that a mis-field by his own team wouldn't allow a stroke intended as a single to reach the boundary.
Sorry, your theory just doesn't make sense to me!